Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Traction & Rolling Stock' started by MarlowDonkey, 12 Feb 2018.
What a strange tangent this thread has gone off on already!
By coincidence, did you read the press release from NS. They have just achieved 100% wind power for the whole railway system in the Nederlands,
This was not achieved by self contained windmills on each train but by responsibly sourcing electricity from efficient North Sea wind farms delivered through the ole to the train. Perhaps the Minister should pay a visit.
Population of the Netherlands is 17m with a population density of 414.1/km2, we have a population of 63m with a population density of 270.7/km2 so what's achievable and viable in the Netherlands might not be here.
Of course another way of eliminating diesel would be to close all non-electrified lines by 2040
Agree that the Nederlands and Belgium have dense populations very suitable to electric traction. The point for me is the debate between on board power generation and electrification using environmentally efficient
The rail industry hasn't helped itself by running both Euston and Kings Cross to Edinburgh services, and others, wholly under the wires, with diesels, just because they find it more convenient. Voyagers have even started to infiltrate Euston to New Street services.
As I read it the stated desire is not to stop new build by 2040, but actually to withdraw them all. That's within the lifetime of current new units, and certainly within the lifetime of the ones currently on order. So that will be the end of any leasing company building new diesels for lease. I suppose it will give Vivarail's fortunes a boost.
I wonder if Jo Johnson, as MP for all-electric Orpington, understands that there are vast swathes of the country elsewhere where electrification has not been even proposed, and the alternative technologies are currently just pipedreams, especially for freight. I wonder how Northern Ireland, no electrification ever contemplated, feels about this.
I think you will find that the average windspeed over the British Isles are greater than in the (less exposed to Atlantic winds) Netherlands. And heavens knows it's hard enough to overcome local resident objections to developing wind power even with the lower population density in the UK.
One problem operators have is that if a line is closed for engineering works they have to arrange an alternative and diverting a service on to a non-electrified line is the preference of both the majority of operators and passengers for long distance services. Few want replacement buses instead over a train with a slightly longer journey time.
Tortally agree. I was not advocating wind power for the UK but advocating electric traction powered by an efficient power source. Dare I say nuclear in a UK context for example?
And that is my fear - it would be hard to argue against "more environmentally friendly electric buses".
The areas with the most wind (Cornwall, west of Scotland, Northern Ireland) don't coincide with the areas with the largest populations (Greater London, West Midlands, southern part of the North West and southern part of Yorkshire.) The water which comes out of my taps at home could have travelled 100 miles from a reservoir and I imagine it could be a similar situation for green energy to get to some places.
Even more so. For electricity we have a National Grid, for water we do not.
He may be new in the job, but Johnson has already learned that the best targets to set as a politician are ones where you're unlikely to still be in post by the time said target is inevitably missed...
Malcolm Tucker is alive and well, clearly!
Indeed in the longer term less diesel under the wire running would be desirable the 800's should fix the worst offenders such as running HST's on the East Coast, in the case of Northern the main priority should be to run a decent service and Bin a Bus. The next franchise can look at some new Bi-modes when hopefully the business case will have improved and a lot of the 15x will need replacing.
I think a more sensible approach would be to set a date for when diesel trains can no longer be built or imported. Its plausible that by the time the sprinters need replacing battery storage will have increased enough to be viable. 195s will likely end up on long rural routes towards the end of their lives to serve lines that are off the wires too long for batteries to be viable. They are a very small proportion of new stock therefore production and import of diesel trains has almost ended.
Even if the 195 order does go ahead, I hope it is the very last. Every new train that isn't a pure EMU or LHCS should be bi-mode.
Locos designated for passenger train haulage can be bi-mode. I know that the class 88 has much lower performance on diesel, but future generations of transformer/control electronics can fix that.
Well clearly the Northern order will go ahead as they are already being built, I presume you are referring to WMT order I see no reason for it not to and more besides quite frankly, I don't think a lot of the proposed alternatives are well developed enough as yet, and as for Regional Bi-modes well I suspect with the shorter distances the benefits maybe less, isn't the range of the Stadler Bi-modes on Diesel also significantly less than your average DMU and maybe an issue in some cases along with the extra cost of course and fact they are still Diesel.
What do you mean by "if", exactly? It's happening.
Edit: forgot the WM order which indeed isn't confirmed. Apologies.
Not just that, but the possibility that the Government may, in light of this announcement, force a change to at least some of the units.
I was very peripherally involved in being shown a demonstration battery bus in Edinburgh, in what must have been 1972 (it was the old K suffix registration). We joked it was just a milk float with about 25 seats. The manufacturer (Chloride?) I recall at the time saying exactly the same thing, that battery technology was advancing so rapidly that in a "few years" they would be up to diesel performance.
46 years on they are still nowhere near.
To be honest, with modern lightweight construction techniques you could probably build a battery electric multiple unit with Pacer levels of performance. By all accounts the BEMU in the 50s didn't have particularily poor performance.
Recharging would be more challenging but 750Vdc tram/third rail systems could be provided in stations and other convenient areas.
There will be 170 electric buses operating in London by next year. Technology is still advancing, but they've already reached a point when they can be used in service
The SMILE is more of a dedicated high speed train (more comparable to a Siemens Velaro or a Bombardier Zefiro) - a Flirt 200 would probably be better matched to XC
I am uncertain as to how transformer/control electronics can solve the basic problem of a diesel engine of less than 1000bhp being able to match the power output of, say, 4000bhp in pure electric mode.
The Government’s left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing!
It may not need to; typically the diesel bit of a bi-mode route will be slower than the electric bit anyway.
Is it not the case that the limitations of bi-modes have influenced where they're proposed, rather than the other way around?
The IEP bi-mode being acceptable with lower performance on diesel, as this mode is only used at the extremities (or was planned as such) where linespeeds and loadings are lower. Contrast with Trans-Pennine where the ridiculous Grayling proposal to NOT electrify precisely the stretch where electric traction offers the greatest benefit- the steeply-graded cross-Pennine section.
46 years on, Edinburgh has a bus route that uses battery-powered buses. They were introduced last year.
That doesn't mean that long-distance trains are about to be running around on battery power; it works for buses because they spend so much of their time at low speed or stopped!
It is however quite possibly feasible for a low speed branch line using a lightweight, tram-style train, though.
A good place to trial something like that would be the Stourbridge branch.