Rail decarbonisation: What are the solutions?

[Rhydgaled]

I think it's pretty obvious what dual modes were designed for, and it isn't ordering them as DMUs and converting them to EMUs later.

Maintaining through services to off-wire destinations while making maximum use of available electrification?

Why do you want to build units which have provision for both diesel and electric propulsion if you're so against the former?

I don't really want to do that, I would rather we could just build EMUs but it simply isn't possible to complete enough electrification fast enough to enable replacement of all the sprinters with EMUs.

Hang on, you said in this post you'd initially leave the pantograph and transformer off. Which is it?

I don't really care - because I don't know how heavy these things are, how much diesel fuel you would save by saving the weight or how easy you can make retro-fitting these components.

My point is that adding the traction motors and transformer from the factory has initial and long term benefits. The initial benefits are, as I said, better acceleration across the board which means that they'll consume less fuel from a standing start, which is where all ICEs use the most fuel.

I don't think I ever said leave the traction motors off, they absolutely need to be there from the start as you say. The other thing you probably need from the start is some form of traction power bus between the vehicles (so that when you add the pantograph it can power the motors on all the motored vehicles).

In the future, removing engine modules and adding a pantograph is going to be far easier and less time consuming than having to add purchasing and then fitting a transformer to that list as well.

As for cost, a DEMU is cheaper to purchase than a BMU.

A standard DEMU wouldn't have a transformer though would it? That would be an additional cost, as would the traction power bus I mentioned above (Voyagers don't have one I believe) so making provision for later conversion automatically makes it more expensive than a DEMU. Ultimately, I'm not sure you would be saving anything over the life of the unit compared to just building a bi-mode from the start. I'm open to the idea of leaving the pantograph (and maybe the transformer as well) off initially if somebody can show that makes more sense but it's not something I particularly care about. The important thing is this:

the current 195/196/197 build should be the very last mechanical DMUs built, with everything else being built with 25kV capability even if it has something else as well.

I would go further and say that the 196s should have been the last, but it's too late for that now as a 197 has been completed. Still - the number of 197s completed as mechanical DMUs must be minimised.

How many diagrams are likely to exist on the railway that never go near overhead wiring or third rail?

Some diagrams in the North of Scotland?

Do the Devon Metro or local Cornwall services count?

It depends on how you define 'near' and 'likely'. If we take the TDNS programme as the desired endpoint and you consider that one station on the route having at least one electrified platform counts as 'near' then I expect the answer is zero (unless you have a 230 doing a Wick-Thurso shuttle, in which case one diagram). The Devon metro is down for electrification in the TDNS and all existing Scottish services would be under the wires for at least part of the journey (the last few miles into Glasgow for the West Highland and Inverness to Dingwall/Tain (I think) for the Far North and Kyle lines).

If you define 'near' as 'not under wires long enough to bother with a pantograph' then you have around 22 diagrams but so spread out that, with the possible exception of the Cornish branches, you probably wouldn't bother having bespoke fleets for them. Those 22 diagrams are:

• Wick - Thurso shuttle (hypothetical) - (1 diagram)
• Windermere shuttle (1 diagram)
• Darlington - Bishop Auckland (2 diagrams)
• Middlesbrough - Whitby/Nunthorpe (3 diagrams)
• Wrexham Central - Bidston (4 diagrams)
• Llandudno - Blaenau Ffestiniog (2 diagrams)
• Marlow branch (2 diagrams for peak service)
• Henley-On-Thames branch (2 diagrams)
• Cornish branches (Gunnislake, Looe, Truro and St. Ives) - (5 diagrams)

 

[507021]

I think that's getting a bit pedantic, to be honest. The pantograph has been taken off but they are otherwise fully equipped 25kV units. To use them as such just requires putting it back on.

I do agree that tri-mode for diesel + 2 voltages of electricity is a bit odd. A tri-mode would be something like diesel, battery and electric, to me, as after all a dual-voltage EMU is not called a bi-mode. "Dual-voltage bi-mode" would probably be the correct description of a unit that can do 25kV AC, 750V DC and diesel.

I'm afraid we'll have to disagree on this one to be honest Neil. Personally, I don't agree or see the logic in a calling a train a dual-mode when it doesn't actually have the ability to switch from one mode to another, even if the capability to do so has been temporarily removed.

Maintaining through services to off-wire destinations while making maximum use of available electrification?

Yes, but you can't do this with "dual mode units" which don't have electric (or battery) propulsion. I'm talking about solutions we can implement right now or in the next few years, not in ten or fifteen years' time.

I don't really care - because I don't know how heavy these things are, how much diesel fuel you would save by saving the weight or how easy you can make retro-fitting these components.

The fact is electrically assisted internal combustion engines use less fuel when accelerating from a standing start than those which aren't. The fuel saving isn't tremendous, but it's a step in the right direction.

You claiming not to care about what's a proven and viable solution to reducing the railway's CO2 emissions makes me wonder why you're taking part in this discussion.

I don't think I ever said leave the traction motors off, they absolutely need to be there from the start as you say. The other thing you probably need from the start is some form of traction power bus between the vehicles (so that when you add the pantograph it can power the motors on all the motored vehicles).

If you're going to go to the trouble of installing traction motors and other associated apparatus to futureproof the unit when it's built, then you may as well put the transformer in at the same time, no? Otherwise, omitting the transformer at this stage would add needless complication and expense when it comes to converting the unit to an EMU in the future.

A standard DEMU wouldn't have a transformer though would it? That would be an additional cost, as would the traction power bus I mentioned above (Voyagers don't have one I believe) so making provision for later conversion automatically makes it more expensive than a DEMU. Ultimately, I'm not sure you would be saving anything over the life of the unit compared to just building a bi-mode from the start. I'm open to the idea of leaving the pantograph (and maybe the transformer as well) off initially if somebody can show that makes more sense but it's not something I particularly care about.

You're correct in saying DEMUs don't have a transformer as standard, but I'm not talking about a standard DEMU. I'm talking about a bespoke modular DEMU which can easily be converted to an EMU later, but even so, these would still undoubtedly be cheaper than a dual-mode or tri-mode unit.

Also, can we try and stop this descending into yet another of your anti-197 arguments, please? They're being built and you really need to just accept it and move on.

 

[Rhydgaled]

You claiming not to care about what's a proven and viable solution to reducing the railway's CO2 emissions makes me wonder why you're taking part in this discussion.

The bit I claimed not to care about was whether you build the unit with a transformer from the outset or not - and the reason I don't care is because I don't know whether that would reduce the railway's CO2 emissions over the life of the unit or not. If I knew that, I might have a strong opinion on the subject but I don't have enough knowledge on that detail to form a strong opinion.

Yes, but you can't do this with "dual mode units" which don't have electric (or battery) propulsion. I'm talking about solutions we can implement right now or in the next few years, not in ten or fifteen years' time.

Sorry, I think I've fundamentally misunderstood you at some point. Earlier in this topic you wrote:

That's why I don't think dual modes are going to be a good solution. They're expensive and the fact is Northern and GWR wouldn't get the best out of them, with many of their respective routes operated by 150s being entirely unelectrified. It just seems counter productive to me.

I took this to mean that you think using a bi-mode on an entirely unelectrified route (which will be at least partially electrified at some point in the future) is a bad idea because the fuel consumption of a bi-mode is greater than a straight DMU/DEMU. Is that not what you meant?

If you're going to go to the trouble of installing traction motors and other associated apparatus to futureproof the unit when it's built, then you may as well put the transformer in at the same time, no? Otherwise, omitting the transformer at this stage would add needless complication and expense when it comes to converting the unit to an EMU in the future.

Sure, having to add a transformer would add complication and expense when you convert from an DEMU to a bi-mode or EMU but so would leaving the pantograph off and having to add that later. If I understand correctly, the transformer (just like the pantograph) is not needed unless you are running under the wires and want to make use of them. Of the two items, I expect the transformer is the heavier piece of kit than the pantograph so if you are leaving the pantograph off to save weight why not leave the transformer off too? The transformer is, after all (unless I'm mistaken), useless if the pantograph is not fitted.

You're correct in saying DEMUs don't have a transformer as standard, but I'm not talking about a standard DEMU. I'm talking about a bespoke modular DEMU which can easily be converted to an EMU later, but even so, these would still undoubtedly be cheaper than a dual-mode or tri-mode unit.

In what respects does your bespoke modular DEMU differ from a bi-mode?

 

[HSTEd]

It's worth noting that SNCF is in love with bi-modes and has stopped ordering diesels entirely.

They will break the constant chicken and egg we have, and allow us to make sane choices about railway electrification going forward.

 

[greatvoyager]

I doubt any further rolling stock ordered will be diesel only.

 

[507021]

The bit I claimed not to care about was whether you build the unit with a transformer from the outset or not - and the reason I don't care is because I don't know whether that would reduce the railway's CO2 emissions over the life of the unit or not. If I knew that, I might have a strong opinion on the subject but I don't have enough knowledge on that detail to form a strong opinion.

I fully respect your views and apologise for my bluntness in my earlier post, but I don't think it's fair to come to conclusions or dismiss something so readily if you don't know much or anything about it. I'd be quite happy to revisit a specific point at a later time if you wanted to go and read up about it first, no problems at all.

I took this to mean that you think using a bi-mode on an entirely unelectrified route (which will be at least partially electrified at some point in the future) is a bad idea because the fuel consumption of a bi-mode is greater than a straight DMU/DEMU. Is that not what you meant?

It is, yes.

In what respects does your bespoke modular DEMU differ from a bi-mode?

As I said, if we're serious about decarbonisation, then we need to eliminate the use of diesel engines full stop as soon as we can.

My idea for a modular DEMU means older DMUs can be replaced with these, at least while a rolling electrification programme is devised and implemented, and then be (quickly and inexpensively) converted to EMUs later by only having to remove the engine modules and add a pantograph. However, I think your dual-mode idea would be good if they had diesel/battery propulsion from new, and converted to electric/battery propulsion later. Batteries are improving all the time, and by that point you could swap the old ones out for newer ones which have a shorter charge time and greater range.

To follow on from my previous point, Merseytravel are trialling something similar as a cheaper way of extending the coverage of the Merseyrail network. From what I understand, the batteries will be charged while the unit runs on 750 V DC, and then the batteries will take over from the pick up shoe once the third rail runs out.

 

[millemille]

A comparatively small, in the grand scheme of things, step in the right direction would be for electric shore supplies to be more widely used at diseasel depots.

When I worked at CZ depot, on nights there would be about 25 Voyagers on site - either in the yard or in the shed - all with all engines idling away burning about 15 litres of fuel, each, per hour. That's at least 100 engines idling for an average of 6 or 7 hours every night. And this scene was repeated, on a lesser scale, at depots from Penzance to Aberdeen every night.

It's similar in the OTM world as well; a tamper will turn up at a work site and enter the possession and then sit, waiting for the track maintenance or renewal to be completed, for anything up to 8 hours with the main engine just idling away burning tens of litres of fuel per hour before it works. Many OTM are fitted with a smaller auxiliary engine to provide hotel power for just such circumstance but when I worked for one of the main OTM operators in the UK we looked at the engine ECM logs for auxiliary engines and they weren't being used, when we asked the operators why not they said they were scared to because the NR QS put them under such pressure they were terrified the main engine wouldn't restart and they'd not be able to complete the shift.

Another small step, comparatively, is to get rid of dedicated RHTT - all of which uses diesel traction AND diesel power packs for the jetting - and work out how to use existing passenger service trains fitted with kit that duplicates the RHTT function.

 

[zwk500]

A comparatively small, in the grand scheme of things, step in the right direction would be for electric shore supplies to be more widely used at diseasel depots.

Yes! And at terminal stations.

...they said they were scared to because the NR QS put them under such pressure they were terrified the main engine wouldn't restart and they'd not be able to complete the shift.

Interesting, and a harder issue to solve

Another small step, comparatively, is to get rid of dedicated RHTT - all of which uses diesel traction AND diesel power packs for the jetting - and work out how to use existing passenger service trains fitted with kit that duplicates the RHTT function.

Where do you put the tanks of fluid? Granted they wouldn't be as big as they are on dedicated RHTT's but you'll still need a few hundred litres.

 

[greatvoyager]

When I worked at CZ depot, on nights there would be about 25 Voyagers on site - either in the yard or in the shed - all with all engines idling away burning about 15 litres of fuel, each, per hour. That's at least 100 engines idling for an average of 6 or 7 hours every night. And this scene was repeated, on a lesser scale, at depots from Penzance to Aberdeen every night.

Wow, that’s an insane amount.

 

[millemille]

Where do you put the tanks of fluid? Granted they wouldn't be as big as they are on dedicated RHTT's but you'll still need a few hundred litres.

There's usually space somewhere on the underframe, if your creative, to shoe-horn in a tank and kit.

 

[Kingspanner]

Will your passenger stock end up as filthy as RHTTs?

 

[millemille]

Will your passenger stock end up as filthy as RHTTs?

The idea is that rather one RHTT working permanently to cover a whole route you use a fleet of service trains to each treat a short section of the route, so the whole route gets the same overall coverage but delivered in tranches.

For example, there's about 10 RHTT's used to cover the Southeastern patch. Southeastern put about 320 trains into service every day on the same patch. So, in very simple terms you've got an average of 32 trains to spread each of the RHTT function over.

So, to answer your question, I would hope not....

 

[zwk500]

The idea is that rather one RHTT working permanently to cover a whole route you use a fleet of service trains to each treat a short section of the route, so the whole route gets the same overall coverage but delivered in tranches. So, to answer your question, I would hope not....

Would this also be for weedspray, anti-icing and de-icing trains?

 

[millemille]

Would this also be for weedspray, anti-icing and de-icing trains?

Potentially, but I would suspect that spraying weedkiller in aerosol form with a train full of passengers in the mix might prove a little iffy....

 

[zwk500]

Potentially, but I would suspect that spraying weedkiller in aerosol form with a train full of passengers in the mix might prove a little iffy....

Considering the RHTT fleet also generally works the other seasonal trains (and the applicator wagons are the same, they just change/flush the tanks), if you have to maintain one you're better off maintaining all.

 

[millemille]

Considering the RHTT fleet also generally works the other seasonal trains (and the applicator wagons are the same, they just change/flush the tanks), if you have to maintain one you're better off maintaining all.

Being an ex OTM engineer, which included MPV and RHTT, I'm aware of the multipurpose nature of the equipment. The weedkilling part of their duties is, at least in 3rd rail land, definitely the lowest utilisation of the equipment. If it were to come down to it and you couldn't carry out weedkilling duties from service trains then it would still be viable to keep a much smaller fleet of OTM in use just for this.

You may or may not be aware that in the aftermath of the Lewisham detrainment incident in the snow Network Rail had an independent investigation carried out and one of the recommendations was that fitting service trains with de/anti ice equipment be investigated. There have been some enquiries made of possible suppliers and I believe at least one consultancy has/is approaching NR for some innovation funding to carry out some concept evaluation.

 

[zwk500]

Being an ex OTM engineer, which included MPV and RHTT, I'm aware of the multipurpose nature of the equipment. The weedkilling part of their duties is, at least in 3rd rail land, definitely the lowest utilisation of the equipment. If it were to come down to it and you couldn't carry out weedkilling duties from service trains then it would still be viable to keep a much smaller fleet of OTM in use just for this.

My apologies, wasn't trying to tell you your job!

You may or may not be aware that in the aftermath of the Lewisham detrainment incident in the snow Network Rail had an independent investigation carried out and one of the recommendations was that fitting service trains with de/anti ice equipment be investigated. There have been some enquiries made of possible suppliers and I believe at least one consultancy has/is approaching NR for some innovation funding to carry out some concept evaluation.

I guessed that the Lewisham incident would lead to investigations of that route, although didn't know any details. Anti ice is all very well but how do they plan to de-ice if the con rail's been covered over?

Fundamentally, if we're talking about saving somewhere in the region of 10-20 sets per route, is it really that big a priority? A far easier saving would seem to be running them with 73s and 88s, as appropriate. Do the 73-hauled seasonals use 3rd rail or on-board generation?

 

[doorhanger93]

I have yet to see a plausible explanation of the so-called greenhouse effect allegedly caused by CO2, and it is not because I have not looked

It's futile, but the explanation is clear as day. CO2 is absorptive/emissive at infrared frequencies, the ones we feel (and see, with thermal cameras) the most as heat. Visible sunlight passes through the CO2 in the atmosphere unabated, and warms the ground. As the ground warms up, it starts emitting more infrared. As that infrared radiation heads back up, some of it is scattered and reflected back into the atmosphere by CO2 rather than escaping into space. This is why people say CO2 "traps" heat.
I know you won't believe me because it takes wilful ignorance to discount the incredible correlation between CO2 emissions and average global temperatures, but at least you can't say you haven't heard a plausible explanation. It's really not complicated, and I'd love to hear how this could not be the case, for the sake of everyone on this planet.

More back on topic, though, I don't think uneconomical electrification is as much of a problem as it seems. The advantages are relative, and alternative traction technologies are universally looking to be more expensive than diesel, which grows the economic argument for electrification.
Plus, when you have something on the level of 70% total network electrification, it's probably better to look at system costs rather than individual route economics, because it's probably cheaper overall to have a standardised infrastructure, rolling stock, and route flexibility, even if some lines don't quite directly pay for their own electrification
So maybe it's better at that point to just electrify the rest of the network? Then maybe you have 5-10% problem sections of line and very low volume routes where it's more economical to just have through service on battery backup.

Edit: Additional point, the "fragility" of largely electrified network isn't really an issue if you just have a reserve fleet of electro-diesels (or electro-hydrogen) locos in stock for pulling/powering engineering and maintenance trains; there's no reason you couldn't deploy one to tow an EMU through a dead zone and maintain some kind of service.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Plus, when you have something on the level of 70% total network electrification, it's probably better to look at system costs rather than individual route economics, because it's probably cheaper overall to have a standardised infrastructure, rolling stock, and route flexibility, even if some lines don't quite directly pay for their own electrification

Indeed, I'm guessing standardisation of rolling stock is why the TDNS recommends electrification Fishguard Harbour; if you're wiring to Milford Haven for freight anyway is it worth having a micro fleet (or quite possibly two micro fleets, if local services to Swansea are deemed to need different stock for expresses to Cardiff) of battery units for the Fishguard branch?

 

[doorhanger93]

if you're wiring to Milford Haven for freight anyway is it worth having a micro fleet... ...of battery units for the Fishguard branch?

Not to mention the advantages for regional route planning.

Edit:

Another small step, comparatively, is to get rid of dedicated RHTT - all of which uses diesel traction AND diesel power packs for the jetting - and work out how to use existing passenger service trains fitted with kit that duplicates the RHTT function.

As I said in the previous post, electro-diesel locos for engineering trains work fine. If the line isn't electric, you have to use diesel traction anyway, so it'd probably easier to just pull the damn thing with a loco than try to build auto-engineering DMUs. I think the ultimate future of this sort of loco is electro-hydrogen (ability to work off the juice is obviously important for engineering trains even on a fully electrified network) but that relies on better tech and strict regulation of internal combustion. For now I don't think the emissions from maintenance are anywhere near the first priority for rail, especially if it means trying to merge maintenance and passenger services, which in my opinion is bound to be more trouble than it's worth for no significant saving in emissions (you still have to haul around and power the equipment whether it's on passenger train or not).

 

[Dr Hoo]

Indeed, I'm guessing standardisation of rolling stock is why the TDNS recommends electrification Fishguard Harbour; if you're wiring to Milford Haven for freight anyway is it worth having a micro fleet (or quite possibly two micro fleets, if local services to Swansea are deemed to need different stock for expresses to Cardiff) of battery units for the Fishguard branch?

As the only freight at Milford Haven is liquid hydrocarbons I am unclear how much longer the flows will last in a de-carbonised world.

 

[Rhydgaled]

As the only freight at Milford Haven is liquid hydrocarbons I am unclear how much longer the flows will last in a de-carbonised world.

I did wonder about that, but without it I'm not sure why the TDNS recommends electrification for Pembrokeshire rather than battery operation west of Whitland. As the Cleddau estuary is such a great natural harbour maybe the thinking is that some other freight traffic will emerge. That said, the ban on petrol and diesel cars is only sales of new vehicles - there will still be demand for fuel for increasingly old cars for many years though whether that will extend much beyond 2050 (and I doubt electrification of the railway in this area will come much before then) is an open question.

 

[doorhanger93]

As the only freight at Milford Haven is liquid hydrocarbons I am unclear how much longer the flows will last in a de-carbonised world.

there will still be demand for fuel for increasingly old cars for many years

Yeah, hydrocarbon imports aren't going away just yet, but semi-seriously, you could reverse the flow for green hydrogen exports. If we're going to become the "Saudi Arabia of wind power" as our glorious leader has said, then we're going to need green energy export facilities!

 

[DerekC]

Yeah, hydrocarbon imports aren't going away just yet, but semi-seriously, you could reverse the flow for green hydrogen exports. If we're going to become the "Saudi Arabia of wind power" as our glorious leader has said, then we're going to need green energy export facilities!

Perhaps ABdePJ was thinking of another sort of wind?

 

[doorhanger93]

Perhaps ABdePJ was thinking of another sort of wind?

The government and media of this country certainly blow a lot of hot air - I wonder if there's green plans to harvest this untapped energy resource?

 

[greatvoyager]

As I said, if we're serious about decarbonisation, then we need to eliminate the use of diesel engines full stop as soon as we can.

I wish we could just electrify everything, that would probably be the biggest step.

 

[Ianno87]

I wish we could just electrify everything, that would probably be the biggest step.

The biggest first step would be electrifying (or at least bi-modeing) the bigger carbon generators.

As Roger Ford points out, each day the entire daily Far North and Kyle line operation contributes as much carbon as a single Voyager running from Edinburgh to Plymouth.

 

[coppercapped]

I wish we could just electrify everything, that would probably be the biggest step.

An alternative approach to decarbonising the railways would be to close the lot.

No trains...no emissions. Simples.

 

[doorhanger93]

An alternative approach to decarbonising the railways would be to close the lot.

No trains...no emissions. Simples.

And put everyone in cars and buses?

 

[507021]

I wish we could just electrify everything, that would probably be the biggest step.

It would, but there's a large number of routes which probably never will be electrified so it's equally important to look at solutions for those.