Tory MP says bi-modal trains 'second-best'

[GRALISTAIR]

The magic new technology that the Southern Region first introduced in 1962...

Aka the Class 73 electro diesel as commented on by Roger Ford in September 2017 Modern Railways

 

[Elecman]

Aka the Class 73 electro diesel as commented on by Roger Ford in September 2017 Modern Railways

Yes that's the one

 

[Gareth Marston]

But we come back to point that the Government doesn't have a bottomless pit of money and Network Rail didn't just Blow the budget it tore to shreds.

In terms of future Projects it strikes me that the Cardiff Valleys is probably a better priority than Cardiff Swansea.

But we have to get the show back on the road. Remember that the "self powered" -trains that weren't diesel that were just round the corner according to DfT 10years ago have failed to materialize...

BTW Most of Cardiff to Swansea is commuting territory for the Cardiff City Region, Bridgend is 12 miles west of Cardiff and Swansea another 30. Its perhaps unique in that the InterCity train to London provides the quicker "regional express" services along the way. Now we have a South Wales Metro concept in development that's potentially putting many trains per hour on this section. 6 tph Bridgend into Cardiff and maybe 4 tph west of Bridgend. The business case is not solely about 1 tph London train.

 

[squizzler]

A program of rolling electrification is still not the wrong option and has been made more pertinent by the dash to electric vehicles in a pan European policy shift. We have no idea what impact Europe's oil consumption dropping will have on world markers and production. As it involves a world market, investment decisions and long term planning we cant blithely assume that prices will drop in fact the opposite could happen as investment in the industry to open up new fields doesn't happen and existing sources start to dry up.This will be very bad news for the UK rail industry.

Bi-mode should be a sticking plaster to gain space not a solution. Whilst there's blame attached to NR a lot of the underpinning causes are consequences of Government policy failure. Theirs a parallel with the 1955 Modernization Plan here Government pretended it was badly let down by British Railways when the reality was it was forced by Government to buy the dodgy British diesels and the Marshaling Yards were a consequence of being hamstrung by Victorian legislation which Government continued to impose on the railways. It cant be allowed to wash its hands of electrification when its the right thing to do just so it can run away from problems of its own making.

I see electrification as an idea whose time is now and historical comparisons should be with early 19th century railways and 20th century motorways. When these infrastructures had become socially inevitable there was a great degree of shenanigans, think of George Hudson, the american Robber Barons siphoning off money from shareholders and government to line their own pockets. With motorways look at the UK's Ernest Marples (obvious financial beneficiary) or Robert Moses of New York as characters the public were willing to allow override democracy and property rights to deliver what was then perceived as "progress".

The railways programme in the UK it is in a considerably better position because there are no allegations of impropriety even if the outcome is the same - that the taxpayer payed more for these developments than required. But the desire for electrification and phasing out diesel where possible still puts electrification on the right side of history - if the industry can continue to sell the story. The narrative of phasing out fossil fuels and air pollution is, in its own way - is as much part of the package as the engineering and the money.

Bi-modes run best on electric railways. Like with the motorways being an inevitable outcome of mass car ownership and motorists' desire for safe spaces where their cars could be used to best effect, introduction of electric capable bi-modes is in my opinion likely to drive public opinion to provide the infrastructure which releases the potential of the trains. Passenger groups, local politicians and industry lobbying will all pay a role.

 

[Olaf]

But we have to get the show back on the road. .

I am not sure how that can happen. Not only is there a large hole left in the funding for the this CP, and the issues around delivery, the environment has changed in the last two years where potentially rail has lost it's lead benefits over road.

It will not change over night, so the next CP is possibly going to be a stop-gap, but it may also be the last with the current suggestions around changes to fund for operations and major projects, both for rail and road.

 

[Pete_uk]

How would hydrogen powered 'HMU's' compare to a DMU such as a 150 or 160 unit in terms of milage?

I know no one really knows but it might be worth speculating about.

 

[HSTEd]

If you have hydrogen, your best bet would be to react it from carbon dioxide obtained from things like cement kilns or glassworks and make methanol or dimethyl ether.

Dimethyl ether is easy to manufacture, has a very high cetane rating so can work in a diesel engine and has very good emissions figures.

 

[Pete_uk]

If you have hydrogen, your best bet would be to react it from carbon dioxide obtained from things like cement kilns or glassworks and make methanol or dimethyl ether.

Dimethyl ether is easy to manufacture, has a very high cetane rating so can work in a diesel engine and has very good emissions figures.

All new and fascinating!

It's just a shame those in charge don't look beyond the next election

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Many of them can't see beyond the end of their noses, let alone past an election.

 

[mallard]

My views on modernisation of railways are pretty darned obvious, but even I'd say that BEMUs or hydrogen-powered (hydrogen power is basically a form of "detached" electric power, just like battery power) trains would be "almost as good" for quieter/slower routes.

Maybe with the 379s due to go off-lease, they can convert more of the fleet to BEMUs (since they trialled it with 379013), for mostly-wired routes with short extensions... Although the 60 mile battery range limits that idea considerably.

 

[Bevan Price]

Many of them can't see beyond the end of their noses, let alone past an election.

True - they only think about short term costs. Any bi-mode train is more complicated than a simple electric (or diesel) train, and will inevitably have higher maintenance costs (and more bits to "go wrong").

Taken over the lifetime of the trains, the total purchase / operating / maintenance costs of bi-modes could probably be in excess of the long term capital / operating costs of a fully electrified railway.

What they should do is find ways to make electrification cheaper, e.g. (for a start) ditch over-cautious clearance specifications, and stick to what has been used safely with 25 KV for over 50 years.

 

[coppercapped]

True - they only think about short term costs. Any bi-mode train is more complicated than a simple electric (or diesel) train, and will inevitably have higher maintenance costs (and more bits to "go wrong").

Taken over the lifetime of the trains, the total purchase / operating / maintenance costs of bi-modes could probably be in excess of the long term capital / operating costs of a fully electrified railway.

Doesn't seem to be true for the electro-diesels, 55 years old and still going strong...

What they should do is find ways to make electrification cheaper, e.g. (for a start) ditch over-cautious clearance specifications, and stick to what has been used safely with 25 KV for over 50 years.

As the RSSB and the ORR (the two guilty organisations) have been remarkably quiet on this subject over the last few months - think of the dog that didn't bark in the night - I suspect some face-saving formula is being worked on.

 

[Emblematic]

As the RSSB and the ORR (the two guilty organisations) have been remarkably quiet on this subject over the last few months - think of the dog that didn't bark in the night - I suspect some face-saving formula is being worked on.

Ian Prosser (Director of Safetey, ORR) had a letter in this months Modern Railways, in which he reiterated some points in the ORR clearances policy.
He emphasised that ORR cannot and did not set the legislation and standards, and they have no power to 'interpret' the rules differently. They can and will allow clearances below the standards, provided a thorough justification and risk assessment is performed. Apparently risk assesment was already required for the 'national condition' reduced clearances when they fell below the TSI standard, but was ignored.
You have to add Network Rail to your list of guilty organisations. From the ORR perspective little has changed, but it seems NR don't comprehend what's required of them, and don't seem willing to engage with ORR or do the necessary assessments (likely as their projects are late and overbudget already) so just chuck the towel in and clear everything to the TSI standard - it's only money, after all. However, the ORR have a role in overseeing the finances of the railway, so they still shoulder a good part of the blame.
I'd point out that these standards only appear to apply to areas the public can access - so tunnels, bridges and so on should only be impacted if they are near stations. With this in mind, it's hard to blame the regulations for all of NRs overruns.
From the tone of Mr Prosser's letter, the ORR's view is they have no power to change what's required by regulation. So I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the clearances to change.

 

[The Ham]

True - they only think about short term costs. Any bi-mode train is more complicated than a simple electric (or diesel) train, and will inevitably have higher maintenance costs (and more bits to "go wrong").

Taken over the lifetime of the trains, the total purchase / operating / maintenance costs of bi-modes could probably be in excess of the long term capital / operating costs of a fully electrified railway.

What they should do is find ways to make electrification cheaper, e.g. (for a start) ditch over-cautious clearance specifications, and stick to what has been used safely with 25 KV for over 50 years.

I would argue that an EMU bimodal train could, by the way that maintenance intervals are measured and fuel cost, be less expensive than a straight DMU.

Diesel engines are generally maintained based on the nunnery of hours the engines run for. As such, the hours that the engine is off when the train is under the wires doesn't count and so requires less maintenance over a year than a DMU.

Likewise electric traction is cheaper per mile than diesel in fuel costs.

Combine these two figures, even if lease costs are higher and you could end up with your total costs per year being lower than a DMU, but they will be higher than an EMU.

 

[HSTEd]

SNCF has decided to order no more pure diesel regional units.
All electric and electrodiesel

 

[HSTEd]

standards, and they have no power to 'interpret' the rules differently. They can and will allow clearances below the standards, provided a thorough justification and risk assessment is performed. Apparently risk assesment was already required for the 'national condition' reduced clearances when they fell below the TSI standard, but was ignored.
You have to add Network Rail to your list of guilty organisations. From the ORR perspective little has changed, but it seems NR don't comprehend what's required of them, and don't seem willing to engage with ORR or do the necessary assessments (likely as their projects are late and overbudget already) so just chuck the towel in and clear everything to the TSI standard - it's only money, after all. However, the ORR have a role in overseeing the finances of the railway, so they still shoulder a good part of the blame.

Has he considered that this drawn out risk assesment process might actually cost more than simply TSI clearing everything? Especially since there is apparently every chance the risk assesment will be rejected and they will then have to clear it anyway?

Potentially weeks of paperwork for every single structure sounds like it is going to cost huge piles of money.

 

[coppercapped]

Has he considered that this drawn out risk assesment process might actually cost more than simply TSI clearing everything? Especially since there is apparently every chance the risk assesment will be rejected and they will then have to clear it anyway?

Potentially weeks of paperwork for every single structure sounds like it is going to cost huge piles of money.

That is the point that commentators in the railway press have been making. Prosser is being disingenuous in his letter - the costs in terms of money and time to prepare risk assessments for each case will be significant. The magazine Rail Engineer published an article in February 2017 which covered the background to this story. To cut a long story short, the original railway standard for electrification was GE/RT8025 Electrical provisions for Electrified Lines, this was superseded by GL/RT1210 in 2015 - the date is significant. There are two separate issues:

1. clearance to fixed structures, and
2. clearance from platform edge to the overhead conductors.

In the first case the new standard GL/RT1210 specifies a minimum clearance of 270mm, although it permits smaller clearances where justified by a risk assessment. However the older GE/RT8025 standard allowed for 'reduced' and 'special reduced' clearances of 200mm and 150mm respectively.

The EGIP contracts for bridge rebuilding to the older standard were let in 2011 - three years later the standards changed and it was expected that these works should now meet the new standard. This obviously caused some difficulties.

Prosser could have allowed, or cause to have allowed, work which had been planned under the then valid - and experience had shown to be safe - standards to continue (also the GW electrification and others) and required that all projects started after the date the new standard came into force had to meet the new requirements. The RSSB is, after all, the body which controls the railways standards. Standards are not normally applied retrospectively - hence 'grandfather rights'.

The second issue is that of clearance from the platform edge. The new standard GL/RT1210 incorporates the requirement of British Standard EN 50122-1:2011 which only allows live 25kV equipment (including the live ends of the pantographs) to be less than a 3.5 metre radius of the platform edge if a risk assessment can justify reduced clearances. The earlier standard GE/RT8025 specified the minimum platform clearances to be those defined in Annex G, BS EN 50122, this being a UK special condition that took into account the restricted British gauge by allowing a 2.75 metre radius of a platform edge.

From the article:

A senior source in Network Rail, however, commented that removing Annex G was a late change that they had not agreed to and that no one in the company had been consulted. Their view is consistent with the impact assessment for GL/RT1201 not mentioning standing surface clearance and stating that it will retain the use of Annex G.
Furthermore, there was also no assessment of the economic consequences of this decision as required by the TSI implementation strategy. In particular, there does not seem to have been any consideration of a minimum clearance of slightly less than 3.5 metres which, as will be seen, would have significantly reduced the impact of this standards change.

It goes on to say:

ENE TSI applies to “new, upgraded or renewed ‘energy’ subsystems”, so it is not concerned with the existing infrastructure. Its clearance requirements specify compliance with the notified national technical rules that are the relevant clauses of GL/RT1210.
For projects at an advanced stage, the 2008 Interoperability Directive allows EU member states to issue a derogation against a new TSI. Although the Department for Transport advised the EU that EGIP was such an advanced project, as it had “reached a significant degree of maturity when the TSI was published in terms of tenders, contracts and detailed design”, the project was not issued with a derogation so had to comply with GL/RT1210.

So I stand by what I wrote originally and add the DfT to the list of guilty parties.

 

[Emblematic]

Has he considered that this drawn out risk assesment process might actually cost more than simply TSI clearing everything? Especially since there is apparently every chance the risk assesment will be rejected and they will then have to clear it anyway?

Potentially weeks of paperwork for every single structure sounds like it is going to cost huge piles of money.

You can do an awful lot of surveys and paperwork for the cost of raising or replacing a bridge! They are more than happy for you to meet the standards, that's their preference, but if the costs are disproportionate then there's the option to go down the risk assessment route, and mitigate the risks as far as reasonable and practicable.
Once you leave the railway, the clearances to a powerline increase to 4.2m, so you can understand why just assuming 2.75m is safe just because it happens to be a railway is questionable. Electricity doesn't care if it's on a railway or not, nor what legacy infrastructure that railway happens to have.

 

[edwin_m]

Has he considered that this drawn out risk assesment process might actually cost more than simply TSI clearing everything? Especially since there is apparently every chance the risk assesment will be rejected and they will then have to clear it anyway?

Potentially weeks of paperwork for every single structure sounds like it is going to cost huge piles of money.

You can do an awful lot of surveys and paperwork for the cost of raising or replacing a bridge! They are more than happy for you to meet the standards, that's their preference, but if the costs are disproportionate then there's the option to go down the risk assessment route, and mitigate the risks as far as reasonable and practicable.
Once you leave the railway, the clearances to a powerline increase to 4.2m, so you can understand why just assuming 2.75m is safe just because it happens to be a railway is questionable. Electricity doesn't care if it's on a railway or not, nor what legacy infrastructure that railway happens to have.

I doubt the direct cost of a risk assessment would exceed that of replacing a bridge, and if a batch was being done by the same people the cost would reduce significantly as much of the text and supporting calculation would be shared between them.

However the issue of timescale and project risk is likely to be very significant. Except in very simple cases where the situation is nearly identical to a previous assessment already completed and approved, you don't know the outcome of the risk assessment until it is nearly finished. There is also the possibility that approval will be down to the judgment of the approving body rather than being based on clearly defined criteria, so for example if the person looking at this one is not the person who looked at the last one then the result might be different even if all other things are equal.

If that happens it is necessary either to contest the rejection, which takes time with no certainty of success, or to start from scratch in designing a new or modified structure. Designing, obtaining necessary approvals, diverting utilities, and waiting for a possession to build it in could add months or even years to a project if the structure in question is on the "critical path".

 

[HSTEd]

Once you leave the railway, the clearances to a powerline increase to 4.2m, so you can understand why just assuming 2.75m is safe just because it happens to be a railway is questionable. Electricity doesn't care if it's on a railway or not, nor what legacy infrastructure that railway happens to have.

Outside the railway we don't tend to have near total control of what is under the power line though do we?

It is much easier to stop someone walking under 25kV OLE with an aluminium ladder than it is in a field or by a street.

 

[Emblematic]

Outside the railway we don't tend to have near total control of what is under the power line though do we?

It is much easier to stop someone walking under 25kV OLE with an aluminium ladder than it is in a field or by a street.

We only have near-total control on fully manned stations. How many stations with OLE are unmanned, or only staffed during certain hours? This, I think, is why a site specific risk assessment has become a requirement, because the amount of control varies greatly.

 

[edwin_m]

The other problem with a risk assessment is the assumptions, which tend to become conditions for further operation. So for example the risk* of electrocution at a minor station with say 100 passengers a day is less than at an identical station with 5000 passengers, simply because fewer people are exposed to the risk. However if the figure of 100 passengers gets written into the Safety Management System then if ridership increases it may be necessary to close the station until someone comes up with a better risk assessment or modifies the infrastructure.

*Risk, in the context of safety, is a combination of the likelihood and the severity of a hazardous event.

 

[coppercapped]

We only have near-total control on fully manned stations. How many stations with OLE are unmanned, or only staffed during certain hours? This, I think, is why a site specific risk assessment has become a requirement, because the amount of control varies greatly.

Back in the real world - how many people on un-manned stations have been electrocuted by the 25kV overhead since, say, 1953 when the Lancaster - Morecombe - Heysham line was converted?

In the light of this answer, how many more people will have their lives saved by these extra risk assessments?

 

[Emblematic]

Back in the real world - how many people on un-manned stations have been electrocuted by the 25kV overhead since, say, 1953 when the Lancaster - Morecombe - Heysham line was converted?

In the light of this answer, how many more people will have their lives saved by these extra risk assessments?

Ah, so we need to kill or maim people before we take action now? The world has moved on from the passive, so-far-so-good approach to safety*. I don't have any figures, and to meaningfully assess the risk you would need to include near misses which typically don't get any publicity.
There was an argument for pushing back against the clearance changes for projects which were in-flight. These are the ones which incurred the delays and additional costs for design changes. That opportunity has gone, the new standard has been accepted. There's no chance of it being reset now, as it would be seen as compromising safety to cut costs, even if the 'real world' risk is little changed.

*Mostly. Grenfell being an obvious exception.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Back in the real world - how many people on un-manned stations have been electrocuted by the 25kV overhead since, say, 1953 when the Lancaster - Morecombe - Heysham line was converted?

In the light of this answer, how many more people will have their lives saved by these extra risk assessments?

That's possibly a zero and zero answer, however Grayling will be risking the life's of his constituents on Crossrail 2 by having the trains powered by electric.

 

[coppercapped]

Ah, so we need to kill or maim people before we take action now? The world has moved on from the passive, so-far-so-good approach to safety*.

Not at all - that's your conclusion, not mine. You are the one arguing for risk assessments - but it seems that the actual results of 64 years of operation are not good enough.

If you ignore the actual results - then I for one would lay no value at all on any risk assessment that you, or any others, may produce.

I don't have any figures, and to meaningfully assess the risk you would need to include near misses which typically don't get any publicity.
There was an argument for pushing back against the clearance changes for projects which were in-flight. These are the ones which incurred the delays and additional costs for design changes. That opportunity has gone, the new standard has been accepted. There's no chance of it being reset now, as it would be seen as compromising safety to cut costs, even if the 'real world' risk is little changed.

*Mostly. Grenfell being an obvious exception.

So you are prepared to accept that the increase in clearances, both from the overhead to fixed structures and from the platform edge to any live part of the overhead or train, may make electrification of some sections of the existing network unaffordable because of the civils work necessary? This needs to be clearly stated.

Obviously for new build - HS2 and the like - the cost of increased clearances are not so significant as the whole system can be designed to meet the requirements.

 

[Emblematic]

Not at all - that's your conclusion, not mine. You are the one arguing for risk assessments - but it seems that the actual results of 64 years of operation are not good enough.

If you ignore the actual results - then I for one would lay no value at all on any risk assessment that you, or any others, may produce.

I don't need to argue for risk assessments, they are required to deviate below the new standards. The regulations are in place. Those who want to revert to the earlier standard need to prove their case. I don't do risk assessments myself, it's not my job, so I wouldn't value a risk assessment I produce. But my personal belief is that, irrespective of the track record, the current standard is reasonable, and reverting to the old standard would require a body of supporting evidence that I suspect Network Rail do not possess.

So you are prepared to accept that the increase in clearances, both from the overhead to fixed structures and from the platform edge to any live part of the overhead or train, may make electrification of some sections of the existing network unaffordable because of the civils work necessary? This needs to be clearly stated.

Obviously for new build - HS2 and the like - the cost of increased clearances are not so significant as the whole system can be designed to meet the requirements.

Network Rail already accepted it. They rolled over mid-project when they had justification to disagree and push back. It's now a done deal. Move on. Whether you or I accept it is irrelevant. If electrification can't be done because it can't meet current safety standards within budget, that's too bad, but I think we both know that this little more than a distraction from the real problems with the electrification projects.

 

[kieron]

Ah, so we need to kill or maim people before we take action now?

In a country where we deny people life-saving medicine because it doesn't save enough lives for the amount it costs, it would be pretty awful for any government body to spend millions of pounds without being able to identify a benefit to the public from the expenditure.

That isn't to say that the government doesn't do some pretty awful things from time to time.

 

[furnessvale]

In a country where we deny people life-saving medicine because it doesn't save enough lives for the amount it costs, it would be pretty awful for any government body to spend millions of pounds without being able to identify a benefit to the public from the expenditure.

That isn't to say that the government doesn't do some pretty awful things from time to time.

Are there ANY countries in the world where this sad calculation does not have to be made?

 

[zn1]

amazingly a tory is speaking sense..BI-MODE shouldnt really be required, they are second best and the only winners in this farce are hitachi.

The joke of GWML and stopping the wires at didcot ? the question one has to ask is, why bother in the first place ?

Network rail & the Government should be hanging their heads in shame at treating the GWR like a second class electrification project. It Makes a mockery of everything Brunel, his contractors and Navvies acheived, what BR engineers did when upgrading to 125mph on the western routes. GWR really should lose the G now - and just be Western Railway as there is nothing great in this 2nd rate electrification project.

we have a proven product in Pendolino and Voyager, on the GWR the next versions of these fleets would have perfect for the line. but No investment in the 2nd best is easier

the bi-mode 319 makes perfect sense, they are in the second part of their lives, and these eeks out a few more years of revenue of the fleet where modified.

these IEP things that are being assembled in newton should be only using their diesels for the last bit of jobs - ie - newton abbot - paignton and branches etc, the diesel tanks should be in ideal and perfect world filled weekly. Not daily as will now be the case.

i have seen the GWR electrostar units on testing regular days from BY, and they look very sexy, its a pity they wont be used properly and their legs wont be stretched properly on the western from at least oxford and Bristol.

Bi-mode on the western is a joke and farce...its something again Brunel and gooch would have been ashamed to have been involved in if they were alive today !