Shapps wants ‘earlier extinction of diesel trains’: suggestions welcome on how to achieve this

[rdlover777]

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-10-19/shapps-wants-earlier-extinction-of-diesel-trains/
Edit: Saw this pop up today in my news feed on facebook, thought it would be worth sharing here.

The phasing out of diesel trains from Britain’s railways could be intensified as part of the Government’s bid to cut carbon emissions.

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps told MPs he is “hugely concerned” that the current policy means diesel trains will continue to operate until 2040.

Earlier this month, he pledged to “thoroughly explore” the case for bringing forward the date for banning the sale of conventionally-fuelled new cars by five years.

Giving evidence to the Commons Transport Select Committee on Wednesday, he said: “I’m also hugely concerned about the idea that we could still have new partially diesel-run trains up to 2040.

“When I look at my comments on cars, where at the moment the policy is 2040 to end the sale of petrol and diesel but I recently said that I’m going to investigate (bringing this forward to) 2035, I also am of course very interested in the earlier extinction of diesel trains.”

An estimated 29% of Britain’s rail fleet is solely diesel-powered.

In February 2018, then-rail minister Jo Johnson announced that he wanted all of these trains to be replaced by 2040.

Mr Shapps’ comments suggest the Government may also ban bi-mode trains – which can be powered by diesel or electricity.

His predecessor, Chris Grayling, heralded bi-mode trains as a way of delivering almost identical passenger benefits as electrifying lines, without the need to carry out the “disruptive” work.

Mr Grayling received widespread criticism in July 2017 when electrification projects in Wales, the Midlands and the North were axed or downgraded.

An investigation by the Rail Industry Decarbonisation Task Force found there are “real possibilities” for some journeys to be made by trains powered by hydrogen fuel cells or batteries, such as local trains that make frequent stops.

But it warned that for high-speed intercity and freight services there are “no suitable alternatives to electric and diesel traction” that will be developed by 2040.

Electric trains have been estimated to cut carbon emissions by 20-35% compared with diesel trains, but only 42% of Britain’s rail track is electrified.

Sim Harris, managing editor of industry newspaper Railnews, claimed that starting a rolling programme of electrification works is the only way to bring forward the phasing out of diesel trains.

“If they don’t do it then I’m afraid Mr Shapps’ ambitions just don’t work,” he told the PA news agency.

“New technologies can emerge and they may do so, but I think stopping the electrification programme on the very spurious grounds that it avoided disruption was a foolish thing to do, particularly in light of the environmental difficulties.”

 

[158756]

Unless he's going to announce funding to make the UK a world leader in battery technology what this really means is Beeching Mk2.

 

[PeterY]

Does Grant Shapps have any inkling of what real life is like in the real world???? It's OK to him to waffle lots of hot air (talk) about carbon emissions etc but has he really given it a lot of thought what will happen in 2040. In the great scheme of life, 2040 is not that far away. RANT OVER

 

[DerekC]

It's a little strange that his predecessor was so keen on bi-modes.

Unless he's going to announce funding to make the UK a world leader in battery technology what this really means is Beeching Mk2.

I think that's a bit pessimistic. Battery technology is going to advance whether the UK is a world leader or not (probably not) and discontinuous electrification plus batteries could be done now. Hydrogen seems to be sexier for some reason, but it still has some way to go to demonstrate real practicability and cost-efficiency.

 

[yorksrob]

They need to get on with the rolling electrification programme cut by Grayling.

 

[DerekC]

Does Grant Shapps have any inkling of what real life is like in the real world???? It's OK to him to waffle lots of hot air (talk) about carbon emissions etc but has he really given it a lot of thought what will happen in 2040. In the great scheme of life, 2040 is not that far away. RANT OVER

Rants may make you feel better but they are not very illuminating. What do you think should happen by 2040?

 

[DerekC]

They need to get on with the rolling electrification programme cut by Grayling.

I agree completely, but we also need a solution for the routes where electrification doesn't have a business case - otherwise @158756 will be right!

 

[yorksrob]

I agree completely, but we also need a solution for the routes where electrification doesn't have a business case - otherwise @158756 will be right!

True. I feel that whatever turns out to be the solution for powering road transport, will also end up powering non-electrified lines.

 

[coppercapped]

As only 1.6% of the total diesel and motor spirit used by roads and railways is used by trains, this seems to me to be tilting at windmills...

...still, it signals his virtue.

 

[furnessvale]

I agree completely, but we also need a solution for the routes where electrification doesn't have a business case - otherwise @158756 will be right!

Perhaps where the alternative is closing the line, the "business case" figures would be different. Not in every case, I hasten to add.

 

[PartyOperator]

20 years would be plenty of time to electrify the majority of the UK network if desired. There's roughly 9,000 single-track km (stk) of non-electrified passenger railway in the UK so over 20 years that's 450stk per year. Quite a lot, but no more than was achieved in the 50s and the 80s and at the peak of the recent Great Western electrification. It would perhaps cost £1bn a year based on recent projects, maybe much less if efficiencies can be achieved through a rolling program of work. Especially if you assume a reasonable length of minor line stk could be met by hydrogen or batteries or light rail style electrification, it seems perfectly doable. Is rail electrification enough of a priority for the next 4-5 governments to commit a billion pounds or so every year for the next 20 years? Probably not based on past form, but it is definitely feasible.

 

[yorksrob]

20 years would be plenty of time to electrify the majority of the UK network if desired. There's roughly 9,000 single-track km (stk) of non-electrified passenger railway in the UK so over 20 years that's 450stk per year. Quite a lot, but no more than was achieved in the 50s and the 80s and at the peak of the recent Great Western electrification. It would perhaps cost £1bn a year based on recent projects, maybe much less if efficiencies can be achieved through a rolling program of work. Especially if you assume a reasonable length of minor line stk could be met by hydrogen or batteries or light rail style electrification, it seems perfectly doable. Is rail electrification enough of a priority for the next 4-5 governments to commit a billion pounds or so every year for the next 20 years? Probably not based on past form, but it is definitely feasible.

From what I've read, the comparatively high cost of the GWML was a bit of a one-off due to circumstances specific to the Western Region, so it mightn't be as expensive elsewhere.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Rants may make you feel better but they are not very illuminating. What do you think should happen by 2040?

Myself? Pretty much blanket OHLE electrification[1] of any line with at least, say, 1tph, and alternative power (e.g. batteries or hydrogen) for lines where this cannot be justified.

[1] For smaller lines light-rail-ising may be a possible cheaper consideration, i.e. 750VDC overhead and tram style vehicles.

 

[paul1609]

Tfl should be given powers to surcharge operators arriving at electrified terminals with diesel trains imho. Give the likes of Great Central, Virgins successor and Hull Trains 5 years notice of a £25 per seat Ultra low Emission Charge for Diesel Trains arriving in London.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Tfl should be given powers to surcharge operators arriving at electrified terminals with diesel trains imho. Give the likes of Great Central, Virgins successor and Hull Trains 5 years notice of a £25 per seat Ultra low Emission Charge for Diesel Trains arriving in London.

Certainly the latter two are not going to be operating any diesel trains into London within a few years when their 80x turn up.

The Chiltern line certainly needs something doing. Paddington, FWIW, is far nicer a place now it isn't full of a constant particulate fug and stink of human urine and faeces.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Tfl should be given powers to surcharge operators arriving at electrified terminals with diesel trains imho. Give the likes of Great Central, Virgins successor and Hull Trains 5 years notice of a £25 per seat Ultra low Emission Charge for Diesel Trains arriving in London.

I thought that Hull Trains' new fleet was bi-mode? It is really only Grand Central that doesn't already have a plan. Chiltern's excuse is that Marylebone isn't electrified.

 

[king_walnut]

Myself? Pretty much blanket OHLE electrification[1] of any line with at least, say, 1tph, and alternative power (e.g. batteries or hydrogen) for lines where this cannot be justified.

This wouldn't be possible in most of the South East region. What's wrong with third rail DC?

 

[Elecman]

This wouldn't be possible in most of the South East region. What's wrong with third rail DC?

As repeatedly advised on other threads the ORR will not countenance any further expansion of the standard 3rd rail electrification system except for very minor extensions ( new sidings/ platforms)

 

[trebor79]

It's a little strange that his predecessor was so keen on bi-modes.



I think that's a bit pessimistic. Battery technology is going to advance whether the UK is a world leader or not (probably not) and discontinuous electrification plus batteries could be done now. Hydrogen seems to be sexier for some reason, but it still has some way to go to demonstrate real practicability and cost-efficiency.

Hydrogen is sexier because it's a much more scalable means of storing excess renewable electricity production than batteries. Hydrogen or power to gas offer the potential of using the national gas grid for energy storage. This has an unlimited capacity for all practical purposes, whereas once a battery is charged, it's charged. It also means the energy can be used as fuel for heating and cooling, transport or used to generate electricity when the wind isn't blowing, so it's more flexible than storing electrons, which is difficult, expensive and in what you ccomparitively limited in what you can do with those electrons.
Electrifying the whole economy is not feasible. Every tall building in London, for example has its own CHP plant in the basement generating power and providing heating and cooling. The primary reason for this is that it would be extremely costly and disruptive to get more electricity into central London (and other large cities), whereas there is plenty of scope to shove more gas down the pipes. There simply isn't a way of getting enough electricity to these news buildings. Gas (hydrogen, methane, biomethane or power to methane) is going to be part of the mix for a very long time indeed.
To bring it back on topic, a CNG or hydrogen powered train is more practical than a battery powered train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This wouldn't be possible in most of the South East region. What's wrong with third rail DC?

Sorry, consider that to contain "that are not already electrified". Little point changing existing stuff, as you say.

 

[Antman]

Absolute load of politicised electoral guff. Not going to happen. What’s going to replace the 60s?. A load of battery powered wagons ? Total and utter tosh. Network Rail can’t even afford to finish the jobs it has at the moment. Let alone electrify everywhere else. Or he intends having 200tonnes of batteries lugging around 120 tonnes of ironing board seated coaches. Maybe he’s going to be hauling the 442s to Weymouth

 

[tbtc]

Absolute load of politicised electoral guff. Not going to happen

True, which is why I'm surprised to see so many people debating the details.

We have a zombie Government, one desperate to throw anything to the press to distract from the omnishambles that they preside over - hence the random rambling about a bridge from Scotland to Northern Ireland or declaring treason on anyone "Collaborating" with the EU, nationalising Northern Rail, whatever... none of it is intended to be taken seriously, it's just distraction, get people talking about something else for a day or two - making promises for five years time (yet alone 2040) when they can't be sure of five weeks time... we shouldn't be giving them what they want by getting bogged down in a serious argument about the rights and wrongs of electrification - plenty of other things on our plates right now.

 

[Grannyjoans]

I don't want clagtastic 37's and 56's off the rails in 20 years, they've been around as long as I remember and it would be crap to think they aren't running at all anymore

 

[JohnElliott]

As repeatedly advised on other threads the ORR will not countenance any further expansion of the standard 3rd rail electrification system except for very minor extensions ( new sidings/ platforms)

True, but it's not as if the ORR's existence or what they won't countenance are laws of physics like gravity or electromagnetism. If a future government came to power with the fixed intention of laying juice rails along every inch of the railway network, they'd have the power to compel the ORR to go along with it, or outright abolish the ORR altogether.

 

[jagardner1984]

Surely all such developments in the past have relied on taxation. Shapp’s government could announce a fuel tax escalator that would instantly create a far wider business case for ever wider electrification. Same as they could instantly make the business case for
electrified rail Freight and slowly kill off the market for new Diesel HGVs. Of course, political cowardice makes any of that most unlikely. At some point we will have to come to terms with the contradiction between more and more jobs created at BA and our supposed climate commitments. Through taxation The government could kill off domestic air travel tomorrow and announce 10 high speed electrified railways the length and breadth of the land. They just don’t.

 

[PartyOperator]

True, which is why I'm surprised to see so many people debating the details.

We have a zombie Government, one desperate to throw anything to the press to distract from the omnishambles that they preside over - hence the random rambling about a bridge from Scotland to Northern Ireland or declaring treason on anyone "Collaborating" with the EU, nationalising Northern Rail, whatever... none of it is intended to be taken seriously, it's just distraction, get people talking about something else for a day or two - making promises for five years time (yet alone 2040) when they can't be sure of five weeks time... we shouldn't be giving them what they want by getting bogged down in a serious argument about the rights and wrongs of electrification - plenty of other things on our plates right now.

They can't make promises for five days time! Still, electrifying the majority of the UK rail network in 20 years would be practical and achievable and the total cost would be less than 1% of one year's GDP, spread over two decades, with hopefully significant benefits for many lines even ignoring CO2. If they're really serious about decarbonising transport, they would probably achieve more, more quickly for less money by investing in cycling infrastructure and buses and cracking down on private cars. Electrifying railways is relatively uncontroversial though (with the public and opposition parties). It's one of the few things they could just 'get done', or at least get started (or rather get un-stopped).

 

[johnnychips]

The amount of CO2 and other crap given out by diesel trains is minuscule compared with other stuff.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

True, which is why I'm surprised to see so many people debating the details.

I'm not so sure. It's certainly a huge task to get rid of diesel trains everywhere. Just thinking of the numbers of bridges and tunnels that would need to be re-built if it was done with wires everywhere... There's also a bit of a problem that TPE and Northern are currently taking delivery of brand new diesel-only trains and I'm guessing those trains have been built with an intended lifetime of rather more than 20 years!

On the other hand, the way the political climate is changing, I could well imagine the idea of diesel trains could become politically totally unacceptable well before 2040. I wouldn't be surprised if by about 2030-2035, we'll tend to be thinking of diesel trains in much the same way that most people today think of - say - smoking in public, or fox hunting. Add to that that by 2040, battery or hydrogen power may be cheap and viable for metro trains. And - judge from his early remarks, Grant Shapps is giving the impression of possibly being rather more competent than Chris Grayling was. So I wouldn't be too surprised if some rolling program emerges to start electrifying the most heavily used non-electrified track, so that by 2040, diesels are a lot rarer than they are today.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The amount of CO2 and other crap given out by diesel trains is minuscule compared with other stuff.

It's probably not too different from the amount put out by cars and buses per passenger-mile travelled. And diesel used in transport has a particularly serious problem of producing all the particulates right where many people live and go to work/go shopping.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

20 years would be plenty of time to electrify the majority of the UK network if desired. There's roughly 9,000 single-track km (stk) of non-electrified passenger railway in the UK so over 20 years that's 450stk per year. Quite a lot, but no more than was achieved in the 50s and the 80s and at the peak of the recent Great Western electrification. It would perhaps cost £1bn a year based on recent projects, maybe much less if efficiencies can be achieved through a rolling program of work.

Although I'm starting to feel more optimistic that maybe we will start to see much more electrification, I'd be astonished if you can electrify the entire remainder of the network for £20bn.

How many bridges would have to be almost completely rebuilt with more clearance, and how much does it cost per bridge to do that.....?