Rail electrification scrapped / 'suspended'?

[jayah]

Where do you get that from?
Outside of actual environmentalists noone cares.
People still buy diesel cars for god's sake.

There you go again! You are hopelessly behind the curve on this. Diesel pollution from road vehicles breaks legal limits and is a huge public health concern. You have missed the big change in public opinion.

All these silly arguments about lively trams and the national grid will be chip paper in the not distant future because the way road transport is powered will be undergoing a sea change.

Spending £bn on electrification for a trivial amount of emissions or to avoid carrying the weight of an engine around with you is yesterday's solution.

 

[snowball]

Estimated 40,000 deaths a year from air pollution in the UK alone.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Estimated 40,000 deaths a year from air pollution in the UK alone.

Indeed and cases of Asthma increasing over the last 30 years or so. Despite all the doom and gloom over the last few days, I think we will continue to see some electrification but it will be on a case by case basis where we can get most bangs for our buck.

 

[najaB]

Despite all the doom and gloom over the last few days, I think we will continue to see some electrification but it will be on a case by case basis where we can get most bangs for our buck.

I actually expect most of the cancelled/suspended projects to eventually be completed, just in a more piecemeal fashion.

 

[JonasB]

What I dont understand, as a complete ignoramous in these matters, is why no other Nations seem to be adopting the same attitude towards electrification. France just opened TWO high speed lines on one day, both I belive electrified.
Denmark has embarked on a programme to electrify its whole system.
And even in the good old USA, they are starting to electrify the Caltrain route from San Francisco to San Jose.
Why dont they all come to us to tell them how to save all that money by, in the words of Mark Carne 'skipping a technology'!

The Danish electrification is a result of having problems finding modern inter city 200 km/h DMUs. The IC4 trains have been nothing but trouble and DSB has more or less given up trying to get them to work. The current attitude seems to be that it's better to electrify and buy modern off the shelf EMUs.

 

[Chester1]

have you never read Private Eye? Here are just a selected few:

• The e-borders programme ( that cock up cost us £200m in damages)
• Digital Media Initiative cost the BBC £98m and didn't work
• NHS national IT programme - £10bn of tax payers money wasted
• A £56m Ministry of Justice back-office project cancelled after the department realised the Cabinet Office had a system doing the same thing
• Department for Transport Shared Services Centre went £81m over budget
• Common Agricultural Policy Delivery Programme was originally forecast to cost £155 million, but the programme has ended up costing more like £215 million
• The MOD spent £1bn on a tank programme that produced no tanks!
• Defence Information Infrastructure: The Ministry of Defence’s secure military network was built to help British troops operate more effectively around the world. The MoD gave parliament a figure of £2.3 billion, but a report by MPs has shown that they knew that the project would cost
  at least £5.8 billion. The true figure has since risen to at least £7.1 billion.

lets not look at the Universal Credit shambles. It is running at £12.8bn cost v a £2.2bn estimate....................

That is an arugment for controlling other parts of government spending not one for giving NR a blank cheque to electrify! There will be electrification until at least the end of 2019 and probably until the end of 2022 (probably indefinitely if Scotland is included) NR has 5 years to get its act together or for Welsh Assembly or the Combined Authorities to obtain devolution deals to electrify lines using their own spec and using contractors. Id like to see Greater Manchester push for them taking over electrification of Lostock junction to Wigan 2018-2020.

 

[HowardGWR]

Indeed and cases of Asthma increasing over the last 30 years or so. Despite all the doom and gloom over the last few days, I think we will continue to see some electrification but it will be on a case by case basis where we can get most bangs for our buck.

Unfortunately, health, social and environmental calculations play no part in cost benefit analysis, unless a price for these issues has been incorporated in the CBR.

You won't find much of that, if anything, in the CBRs.

 

[AndrewE]

...which is exactly why it is better that politically-accountable Ministers and other accountable officials should have oversight of infrastructure development (aka investment) rather than blindly following financial appraisals or allowing "the market" to govern what happens!

 

[coppercapped]

Estimated 40,000 deaths a year from air pollution in the UK alone.

The figures I have found here suggest a total of 29,000 deaths per year in 2008. Still high, but not quite so bad!

The accompanying statement says:

Estimates of the number of deaths in UK local authorities that can be attributed to long term exposure to particle air pollution have been published by Public Health England (PHE).

The figures are calculated by modelling annual average concentrations of man-made particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter, known as PM2.5 and their impacts on health.

and

The estimates are made for long term exposure to particulate air pollution (i.e. over many years) rather than short term exposure to high pollution episodes as experienced last week (Added in edit: this refers to the week before April 2014). However, short term exposure to high levels of air pollution can cause a range of adverse health effects including exacerbation of asthma, effects on lung function, increases in hospital admissions and mortality.

It should be realised that these numbers are the result of modelling of results of epidemiological studies. These are statistical deaths - the subjects were not killed by pollution directly but their health was adversely affected by long term exposure to particulates so they died earlier than actuarial assumptions would suggest.

Does anyone have any figures concerning the relative importance of the sources of the particulates? Are diesel engines the main source or does tyre, road and brake lining wear come into the picture? What other man-made sources are there for these small particles or are some from natural causes?

 

[najaB]

What other man-made sources are there for these small particles or are some from natural causes?

I don't know, but suggest that they wouldn't be counted as excess deaths if the sources were natural.

 

[eastdyke]

Estimated 40,000 deaths a year from air pollution in the UK alone.

Its 'simple' you take one figure from one report and add it to a figure from another report and come up with a number. In this case 40,000.

I am not a particular supporter of Greenpeace but they do explain the 40,000:

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/20...se-40000-deaths-every-year-fact-check-linked/

The most cited figure in the UK media comes from a report by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP), published in 2016.

The RCP study in fact combines two figures: 29,000 deaths that are attributed to particulate (PM) pollution and 11,000 attributed to nitrogen dioxide (NO2).

Particulates
The 29,000 number comes from a report, published in 2010 (pdf), by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution (COMEAP), a group of experts that advises the government. The report was government funded and produced with the Institute of Occupational Medicine.

While RCP uses the word “equivalent”, COMEAP talks in terms of “attributable” deaths.

To understand what this means, it is more accurate to speak in terms of lives shortened, rather than deaths caused.

And then read on

Nitrogen oxides
So where did the extra 11,000 deaths from NO2 come from?

In 2015, Defra issued guidance that attributed 23,500 deaths in the UK to NO2 pollution. But because there is an overlap between the two pollutants, the RCP reviewed government and other available evidence and estimated the figure for NO2 should be 11,000 — making the total overall figure 40,000.

And then read on some more.

 

[AndrewE]

Does anyone have any figures concerning the relative importance of the sources of the particulates? Are diesel engines the main source or does tyre, road and brake lining wear come into the picture? What other man-made sources are there for these small particles or are some from natural causes?

I think that combustion (inside diesel engines especially) produces the smallest particulate (PM 0.1 and upwards), whereas wear generates much bigger bits. There was a book called "the Particle Atlas" which we microscopists used to identify the source of contaminants collected from the air, but stuff below about 2 micron (would be PM 2) would have been almost invisible when it was published.

Later we counted individual asbestos fibres right down to 0.2 micron diameter, and we could just see soot particles in city air which I am sure were down to 0.1 um.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

What I dont understand, as a complete ignoramous in these matters, is why no other Nations seem to be adopting the same attitude towards electrification. France just opened TWO high speed lines on one day, both I belive electrified.
Denmark has embarked on a programme to electrify its whole system.
And even in the good old USA, they are starting to electrify the Caltrain route from San Francisco to San Jose.

I'm not sure I'd use the USA or Caltrain as an example. That particular project has finally got funding after being repeatedly stalled for lack of funds since first proposed in - ummm - 1992! I'd say we're still far ahead of the USA in support for both the railways in general and electrification in particular.

 

[The Ham]

I'm not sure I'd use the USA or Caltrain as an example. That particular project has finally got funding after being repeatedly stalled for lack of funds since first proposed in - ummm - 1992! I'd say we're still far ahead of the USA in support for both the railways in general and electrification in particular.

How about Thameslink, first proposed in 1991 and due to open in 2018?

Alternatively, the Hackney Chelsea line first suggested in the 70's likely to be open 2030 (ish)!?!?

As such the USA example isn't that far adrift from some of our own projects.

 

[Taunton]

I'm not sure I'd use the USA or Caltrain as an example. That particular project has finally got funding after being repeatedly stalled for lack of funds since first proposed in - ummm - 1992! I'd say we're still far ahead of the USA in support for both the railways in general and electrification in particular.

Although this line handles quite a daily traffic, it is almost wholly concentrated in the commuter peaks, to an extent unknown in Britain. Full length trains depart San Francisco every 3 minutes in the high peak, from about 1645 to 1715 (both morning and evening peaks are a bit earlier than here, daytime is just an hourly service in minimalist 2-car trains, commonly sparsely filled. Weekends likewise. Apart from office commuters to San Francisco downtown, it makes a pretty non-existent contribution to travel in the area, and no real impact on the 8 or more lane US101 parallel, which is busy at all times.

That sort of service requirement just does not justify the high fixed installation cost of electrification. Speeds cannot be increased much because of the huge number of level crossings (there must be over 100 between San Francisco and San Jose).

 

[doa46231]

In that case why are they electrifying it instead of going for the weird and wonderful suggestions for our railways, viz bi-modes, batteries and hydrogen cells?

The website metafilter post has interesting cab rides on the line. Rather demonstrates trains are more frequent and longer than you suggest.

California generally is obsessed about pollution.
BART are introducing a complete new fleet of electric commuter trains. Again no hang-ups about future technology making electrification redundent.

Similarly they are spending large amounts on the North-East electrified main line.

My point is that the USA, not backward in embracing new technology does not seem to be making such a fuss when in their view electrification has certainly not had its day.

 

[najaB]

California generally is obsessed about pollution.

My point is that the USA...

California ≠USA in many, many ways.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Although this line handles quite a daily traffic, it is almost wholly concentrated in the commuter peaks, to an extent unknown in Britain. Full length trains depart San Francisco every 3 minutes in the high peak, from about 1645 to 1715 (both morning and evening peaks are a bit earlier than here, daytime is just an hourly service in minimalist 2-car trains, commonly sparsely filled. Weekends likewise. Apart from office commuters to San Francisco downtown, it makes a pretty non-existent contribution to travel in the area, and no real impact on the 8 or more lane US101 parallel, which is busy at all times.

That sort of service requirement just does not justify the high fixed installation cost of electrification. Speeds cannot be increased much because of the huge number of level crossings (there must be over 100 between San Francisco and San Jose).

It's also only 77 miles long, with a maximum speed of 79mph and typically 12 stops (21 for stoppers and off-peak).
It also has next to no network connections.
So a bit like London-Swindon but on Chiltern (Aylesbury)-like infrastructure.
It's not like electrifying San Francisco-Los Angeles for fast intercity services.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

California ≠USA in many, many ways.

Correct - I am not a US citizen but lived here for 17 years. My first US Boss and family from CA. If anything, CA is even more enlightened and progressive and forward thinking and scientifically cutting edge - so if they are going for 25KV AC OHLE it speaks volumes.

 

[Olaf]

Whatever the organisational structure, the Digital Railway will undoubtedly involve substantial changes to Network Rail's infrastructure and operations, and require the expertise of Network Rail specialists, especially signalling engineers and timetable planners. Unlike electrification, it will also involve new and untested technology, with the consequent risk that its advocates will over-hype the benefits and underestimate the challenges to an even greater extent.

If the plan is to parachute in external project managers and consultants who lack previous rail industry experience, I am not convinced that that is a magic wand to transform Network Rail's enhancement project delivery performance.

Current proposals being looked at are for NR to provide core services to external suppliers, but those external organisations will handle program management and in cases provide the expertise.

 

[Olaf]

So the govt announces we will all be driving electric cars within 25 years in the same week it announces the cancellation of railway electrification schemes in favour of bimode diesels.

Classic British bodge

Exactly the opposite; the specific projects cancelled will already be benefiting from bimode vehicles so no-longer any requirement for these particular projects - for say next 30 - 35 years.

 

[Olaf]

My heart sank when I read the phrase "Digital Railway". Don't get me wrong, I'm all for any solutions that increase capacity and improve performance, but don't be entirely fooled into thinking that when the government uses the word digital that they actually mean implementing technical solutions. I can't say too much about this, but believe me when I say there are teams all across the public sector busily working under the title "Digital xxxxxxx" yet few are actually dedicated to actually implementing digital solutions. The word digital has become a buzz word designed to look like something is happening, when in reality many of these teams haven't a clue how you would actually do this. But they are quite good at presenting presentations and designing logos & rhetoric for websites. So much so I have developed my own phrase, "Digital On Paper" which just about sums up how I feel about it. Not so long ago a manager of one of these "Digital" teams said this to me which really summed it all up, "You're a coder aren't you? Coders intimidate me.......". So don't believe everything you read, even if the digital railway concept gets beyond PowerPoint, there's a whole team of financial analysts waiting in the wings to tell you why it cant be done......

The "Digital Railway" is an industry driven initiative - very broad yes, but not really of the Government's making. The funding has been allocated, and projects are in-hand. Yes, some probably will not get far, but there is already product delivery on it's way and the dynamics will be at a higher tempo than the rail industry is commonly used to.

 

[Olaf]

Electrification has not been scraped - there are still projects in the pipeline that will need to compete for funds.

The key problem is NR's inability to deliver the agreed package of work on time and to budget. Until that is addressed by NR, there will be little in additional funding for enhancements under NR's remit in future Control Periods.

 

[Chris125]

That sort of service requirement just does not justify the high fixed installation cost of electrification. Speeds cannot be increased much because of the huge number of level crossings (there must be over 100 between San Francisco and San Jose).

Don't forget it now forms a fundamental part of the California High Speed Rail scheme, which I think is helping to fund it? Nearly killed it to, thanks to Republican opposition to anything connected with it.

 

[squizzler]

I am puzzled about the response of the highways to the (currently being tested in public) driverless horseless carriages. Those who claim to be "in the know" have been telling us years that this innovation is coming literally down the pike in a few years. We do not really know what sort of highways these things are likely to require. Yet highways are still being proposed and constructed despite the risk these will be "stranded assets" in light of driverless cars. And yes, highway schemes over run on cost at least as much as those on railways.

Yet when the equally unknown quantity of bi-modes emerges, this is takes as reason to cancel electrification. Bi-modes are at least known to benefit from electrification.

Perhaps a consistent logic is required across modes?

 

[furnessvale]

Perhaps a consistent logic is required across modes?

Been needed for many years, but given the voting power of the motorist, no government will have the balls to do it!

 

[Taunton]

Been needed for many years, but given the voting power of the motorist, no government will have the balls to do it!

Conssitent logic across modes? Be careful what you wish for. Current government income from highway users far exceeds the expenditure. Meanwhile, for railways, it's the other way round. Bear in mind that highway expenditure is taxed at almost every point. Fuel duty. VAT on fuel. Vehicle excise duty. New car tax. VAT on new cars. Etc etc. In contrast, no government income from any of this for railways.

When it comes to spending, there's Crossrail, HS2, electrification of GWR, in Lancashire, Scotland, etc. Meanwhile there hasn't been a new motorway in England for years.

 

[coppercapped]

I am puzzled about the response of the highways to the (currently being tested in public) driverless horseless carriages. Those who claim to be "in the know" have been telling us years that this innovation is coming literally down the pike in a few years. We do not really know what sort of highways these things are likely to require. Yet highways are still being proposed and constructed despite the risk these will be "stranded assets" in light of driverless cars. And yes, highway schemes over run on cost at least as much as those on railways.

Yet when the equally unknown quantity of bi-modes emerges, this is takes as reason to cancel electrification. Bi-modes are at least known to benefit from electrification.

Perhaps a consistent logic is required across modes?

Why are bi-modes of

equally unknown quantity

?

The only significant difference between a bi-mode and a straight electric train on the one hand and a diesel-electric train on the other is a changeover switch.

Switches are quite reliable these days.

 

[John S2]

Current government income from highway users far exceeds the expenditure.

'Expenditure' is only part of the story. The above statement ignores the huge costs of premature death by air pollution.

 

[najaB]

'Expenditure' is only part of the story. The above statement ignores the huge costs of premature death by air pollution.

Premature death has very little cost. Ill health, on the other hand.