Transport committee writes to Transport secretary demanding concise plan for electrification

[Annetts key]

It takes me back to where I started, thinking about my ebike, which needs to be on charge for about the same length of time that I want to be riding it.

The thing is, the charging time is determined by a number of factors. Including but not limited to (as it depends on cell chemistry):

• Battery cell chemistry AND construction, some cell types can charge quicker than others,
• The available “mains” power,
• The design of the charging circuitry (quicker charging can often be carried out with more sophisticated systems),
• Temperature of the cell (some cell chemistries charge more efficiently at different temperatures),
• The method that is used to interconnect the cells that form the battery, a parallel wired bank of cells may be able to be charged quicker than a series wired bank of cells.

Consumer electronics are primarily designed for low cost. The ebike and scooter manufacturers are likely intending them to be charged “overnight”, hence they are more likely to have “slow” chargers because these are the cheapest type.

 

[Magdalia]

Keep up!

I was aware of buses using pantographs for rapid charging at termini, but my impression is that it is not widespread, or used on high mileage operations. The Harrogate example quoted 400000 fleet miles in 2 years, which sounds like a big number, but with a fleet of 8 vehicles they are doing less than 100 miles per day.

And pantographs can only be installed at termini with suitable space and layout.

• The method that is used to interconnect the cells that form the battery, a parallel wired bank of cells may be able to be charged quicker than a series wired bank of cells.

My knowledge of electricity is only rudimentary, but I'd expect charging in parallel to be quicker than charging in series. Does anyone know if the Stadler BEMU does that?

 

[AndrewE]

I was aware of buses using pantographs for rapid charging at termini, but my impression is that it is not widespread, or used on high mileage operations. The Harrogate example quoted 400000 fleet miles in 2 years, which sounds like a big number, but with a fleet of 8 vehicles they are doing less than 100 miles per day.

which is about what https://www.quora.com/How-many-miles-does-an-average-London-bus-drive-every-year says the London fleet does - or did:

From the TfL website (Source: Buses performance data
), we can see that in the financial year 2013-2014, a total of 502.4 million kilometres were scheduled and 97.7% of them were operated.

So a total of 501,423,000 kilometres were driven by London buses (as part of a scheduled journey).

This gives us an estimated average of between 57,205 - 57,522 kilometres per bus -

Or about 35,600 miles per year.

There are also interurban routes round here where buses regularly stop 2 or 3 times for 5 mins or so, if the pantograph is mounted above permitted lorry height why shouldn't one be at the roadside where the busses wait time?

 

[43066]

which is about what https://www.quora.com/How-many-miles-does-an-average-London-bus-drive-every-year says the London fleet does - or did:

There are also interurban routes round here where buses regularly stop 2 or 3 times for 5 mins or so, if the pantograph is mounted above permitted lorry height why shouldn't one be at the roadside where the busses wait time?

35k per year is a lower number than I would have expected. Then again traffic is very slow in London.

 

[Krokodil]

For buses it is probably worth installing overhead wires in the areas of towns where several routes converge. I'm not sure whether pantographs (you'd need multiple for current return) are a practicable option, but several European cities are expanding trolleybus coverage, using batteries to allow off-wire operation.

 

[eldomtom2]

‘They’ haven’t, actually.

Official government policy is that all diesel passenger trains will be withdrawn by 2040 and the railway will be net zero by 2050. Of course, they haven't actually said how this is going to be done...

 

[Bald Rick]

Official government policy is that all diesel passenger trains will be withdrawn by 2040 and the railway will be net zero by 2050. Of course, they haven't actually said how this is going to be done...

No, it isn’t.

* In 2018, Jo Johnson said that he would like to see all diesel only trains to be phased out by 2040.
* This lead to the creation of the Rail Decarbonisation Task Force, to identify what was possible, and the production of Network Rail Traction Decarbonisation Network Study (TDNS) to show what could be done.
* The TDNS was published 3 years ago (July 2020), and demonstrated it could be done, with an ambitious programme of electrification and deployment of battery and hydrogen technology.
* However the TDNS was a selection of options for Government to choose, as it is a policy decision whether to puruse that goal, and if so, how.
* The Government published the Transport Decarbonisation plan in July 2021. This has a commitment to make rail ‘Net Zero’ by 2050, with an ‘ambition’ to remove all diesel only passenger trains by 2040. The latter is not a commitment, and neither will it happen.

 

[Class 170101]

https://www.stadlerrail.com/en/flirt-akku/details/ is an example of a modern BEMU. 15 minutes charge time on OLE to give 150km of range. Ely to Norwich is apparently 75km, so you could just about do it on that size of battery. Or as @Bald Rick says, you scale up the battery. With that kind of charge time, you won't need a massive amount of time under the OLE to be fully charged.

Thanks for this.

Are there any examples where these are already being used successfully?

Ely-Norwich is 53 miles or about 85 km so a round trip would be beyond the range of this example.

More batteries could extend the range, but would more than 15 minutes then be needed to recharge?

And they would add more weight and use more space.


Agreed, but it is a significant factor in determining how widely it can be applied.

You would be able to charge up in the turnarounds at both Norwich and Stansted as well as en-route between Stansted and Ely. The risk would be if it wandered off at Norwich to other routes without wires.

 

[Pete_uk]

As a intermediate step, replacing all the BR era DMUs with new diesel units with batteries which will allow the engines to be turned off at terminal stations.

If said battery could assist with the first mile or so acceleration meaning the engine wouldn't need to rev so highly making mostly heat and noise that would help too

 

[snowball]

* The Government published the Transport Decarbonisation plan in July 2021. This has a commitment to make rail ‘Net Zero’ by 2050, with an ‘ambition’ to remove all diesel only passenger trains by 2040. The latter is not a commitment, and neither will it happen.

It also contained a promise that the government would announce an ambitious and affordable electrification programme in line with the TDNS, but no programme, whether or not affordable or ambitious, has yet been announced.

 

[Annetts key]

* In 2018, Jo Johnson said that he would like to see all diesel only trains to be phased out by 2040.
* This lead to the creation of the Rail Decarbonisation Task Force, to identify what was possible, and the production of Network Rail Traction Decarbonisation Network Study (TDNS) to show what could be done.
* The TDNS was published 3 years ago (July 2020), and demonstrated it could be done, with an ambitious programme of electrification and deployment of battery and hydrogen technology.
* However the TDNS was a selection of options for Government to choose, as it is a policy decision whether to puruse that goal, and if so, how.
* The Government published the Transport Decarbonisation plan in July 2021. This has a commitment to make rail ‘Net Zero’ by 2050, with an ‘ambition’ to remove all diesel only passenger trains by 2040. The latter is not a commitment, and neither will it happen.

It also contained a promise that the government would announce an ambitious and affordable electrification programme in line with the TDNS, but no programme, whether or not affordable or ambitious, has yet been announced.

Some may describe the apparently “environmentally friendly” announcements without a proper plan as “greenwashing”.

The current government is more interested in other things unfortunately.

We know that more OLE is part of the answer to the question. Dithering and delaying achieves nothing and makes progress harder and more expensive in the longer term. Is the installation of OLE expensive? In the short term, maybe, but not in the long term.

Hence, the government needs to stop kicking the can down the road and put a credible plan together. Then, get on with it.

At the very least, to provide OLE on a lot more of the main lines. Especially where Network Rail already has developed plans for it.

 

[BrianW]

Some may describe the apparently “environmentally friendly” announcements without a proper plan as “greenwashing”.

The current government is more interested in other things unfortunately.

We know that more OLE is part of the answer to the question. Dithering and delaying achieves nothing and makes progress harder and more expensive in the longer term. Is the installation of OLE expensive? In the short term, maybe, but not in the long term.

Hence, the government needs to stop kicking the can down the road and put a credible plan together. Then, get on with it.

At the very least, to provide OLE on a lot more of the main lines. Especially where Network Rail already has developed plans for it.

Every plan is only that- a plan; so much hot air until trains are running. eg HS2 Eastern leg, Bradford, Electric Spine, Oxford, Bedford, ... Promises, ambitions, all can be delayed, cancelled, changed. All is vanity.

 

[HSTEd]

Hence, the government needs to stop kicking the can down the road and put a credible plan together. Then, get on with it.

And if/when the plan collapses under the fundamental inability of the industry to deliver, should the government just keep pouring money into the bottomless pit?

I dread to think how much the cost of the GWRM would have reached by the end if the government hadn't put the thing out of its misery

At the very least, to provide OLE on a lot more of the main lines. Especially where Network Rail already has developed plans for it.

The government has no reason to have confidence that Network Rail's programme is going to go any better than the last time.
Or any better than Railtrack's did.

And how many mainlines are not already electrified at this point?
And many of the unelectrified ones are being partially or totally relieved of much of their traffic by the HS2 programme.

 

[Annetts key]

And if/when the plan collapses under the fundamental inability of the industry to deliver, should the government just keep pouring money into the bottomless pit?

I dread to think how much the cost of the GWRM would have reached by the end if the government hadn't put the thing out of its misery

The government has no reason to have confidence that Network Rail's programme is going to go any better than the last time.
Or any better than Railtrack's did.

And how many mainlines are not already electrified at this point?
And many of the unelectrified ones are being partially or totally relieved of much of their traffic by the HS2 programme.

Are you sure you’re not Marvin The Paranoid Android? Have you lost the ability to be optimistic?

Any plan can go wrong. Fact. Absolutely everything made by mankind can be described as a bottomless pit, as everything either needs continuing maintenance or eventually replacing.

The fact is, an OLE programme has to be done. If we keep pushing it back, it will only get more expensive. At some point, using diesel engines will become unacceptable.

Part of the reason that the GWML OLE project failed was that they tried to go too fast, use new techniques and did not properly take into account learning experiences from previous engineering works. There was absolutely no reason for any signalling cables to have been hit, for example.

Now, there is nothing wrong with trying to find ways of doing things quicker, or using new techniques, but you don’t plan an entire large scheme on this without having back up plans and doing extensive trials first.

And you do some actual research before finalising the plans, and definitely before starting construction work. From what I know about the GWML OLE project, they didn’t do this (example, the problem of dealing with Box tunnel on the route, not knowing that there was both an underground signalling cable and an underground river to deal with, both of which some of the local engineering staff knew about).

There are still substantial amounts of unelectrified main line route miles across the country. The HS2 project does not mean that the existing lines can be ignored. One of the points of HS2 is to add much needed capacity in addition to the existing lines. The existing lines will not end up being lightly used.

 

[Krokodil]

As a intermediate step, replacing all the BR era DMUs with new diesel units with batteries which will allow the engines to be turned off at terminal stations.

If said battery could assist with the first mile or so acceleration meaning the engine wouldn't need to rev so highly making mostly heat and noise that would help too

Wasn't that supposed to be the concept behind the TfW 230s?

And how many mainlines are not already electrified at this point?

Excluding schemes actively underway:
MML north of Market Harborough, GWML west of Chippenham, SWML west of Cardiff, North Wales Coast, CLC line via Warrington Central, B&H west of Newbury, Swindon-Gloucester-Severn Tunnel Junction, Bristol-Bromsgrove, Birmingham-York, ECML north of Edinburgh, Reading-Birmingham, Chiltern Mainline...

And many of the unelectrified ones are being partially or totally relieved of much of their traffic by the HS2 programme.

Not many of them, not since the Eastern Leg was curtailed. The existing lines will instead be wired and connected to the remaining stump of HS2.

 

[deltic08]

A battery that could get a 4 car BEMU from Ely to Norwich would need to be in the region of 0.7MWh. Let’s double it to be safe, say 1.5MWh. That would weigh about 10 tonnes and be the size of 12 standard fridges. Of course the battery doesn’t have to be in one lump, and can be spread around the train. A battery that size would cost about £750k in a ‘normal’ environment, let’s double that again to be safe for railway prices. £1.5m. Buy enough to cover the whole Anglia fleet (ie to cover the Stadler bimodes) and that would be £60m (Extra cost over straight EMUs). That’s what it would cost to get the wires from Trowse Junction to not quite Wymondham.

Typically, however, there’s only every 5/6 units on that route each day, so you’d only need to have 8 units max., rather than 38.

All my own back of envelope figures, nothing official.

That's the problem, back of an envelope and not looking at it seriously.
If the line from Norwich to Ely was electrified once it would be for life. BEMUs would have their batteries renewed every ten years or so due to degradation and discarded in landfill sites. At £60m every ten years, you would have spent in fifty years what electrification would have cost on spent batteries and still not have any electrification to show for it. Having to carry ten tons of batteries around per train for fifty years uses more electricity than straight EMUs and extra electricity used to charge said batteries. What about freight between Norwich and Ely? That would be able to take advantage if the route was wired.
This argument seems so obvious. Have I got it wrong somewhere?

Transdev in Harrogate is spreading porkies to its customers. Its electric buses are not emission free. Because they are very heavy compared to diesel buses they are more destructive to the roads they run on. What is more is that they have greater tyre wear that produces greater amounts of 2.5 particulates from tyre carbon black and from carbon in the asphalt. Both these are carcinogenic and mutatogenic and not good for our health.
On top of this, because they are slow moving heavy vehicles around town, there is greater wear on brake pads and brake discs. There appears to be a connection between brake disc wear and dementia as there are plaques found in the brains of dementia sufferers on post mortem from grey iron that brake discs are made of.
You do not get this from steel wheels on steel rails with rheostatic braking.

 

[YourMum666]

Wasn't that supposed to be the concept behind the TfW 230s?


Excluding schemes actively underway:
MML north of Market Harborough, GWML west of Chippenham, SWML west of Cardiff, North Wales Coast, CLC line via Warrington Central, B&H west of Newbury, Swindon-Gloucester-Severn Tunnel Junction, Bristol-Bromsgrove, Birmingham-York, ECML north of Edinburgh, Reading-Birmingham, Chiltern Mainline...


Not many of them, not since the Eastern Leg was curtailed. The existing lines will instead be wired and connected to the remaining stump of HS2.

The Cotswold, Reading - Basingstoke, Harrogate loop, Lincoln isn’t wired, Basingstoke - Exeter…

 

[slowroad]

That's the problem, back of an envelope and not looking at it seriously.
If the line from Norwich to Ely was electrified once it would be for life. BEMUs would have their batteries renewed every ten years or so due to degradation and discarded in landfill sites. At £60m every ten years, you would have spent in fifty years what electrification would have cost on spent batteries and still not have any electrification to show for it. Having to carry ten tons of batteries around per train for fifty years uses more electricity than straight EMUs and extra electricity used to charge said batteries. What about freight between Norwich and Ely? That would be able to take advantage if the route was wired.
This argument seems so obvious. Have I got it wrong somewhere?

Transdev in Harrogate is spreading porkies to its customers. Its electric buses are not emission free. Because they are very heavy compared to diesel buses they are more destructive to the roads they run on. What is more is that they have greater tyre wear that produces greater amounts of 2.5 particulates from tyre carbon black and from carbon in the asphalt. Both these are carcinogenic and mutatogenic and not good for our health.
On top of this, because they are slow moving heavy vehicles around town, there is greater wear on brake pads and brake discs. There appears to be a connection between brake disc wear and dementia as there are plaques found in the brains of dementia sufferers on post mortem from grey iron that brake discs are made of.
You do not get this from steel wheels on steel rails with rheostatic braking.

In respect of BEMUs, this is just another envelope! Cost comparisons need to be done more systematically using discounted cash flows. There will be no general answer.

Brake wear is lower in (most) electric vehicles due to regenerative breaking, and could be virtually eliminated by use of modern “capturing” drum brakes.

Tyre and road wear is a more difficult challenge, but again amenable to technical progress in tyre construction and to dust capture systems. Battery weight is falling over time. In any case it is a highly localised problem - traffic restrictions may be an appropriate response in some places, but not needed universally.

Metal particulate pollution is very high in underground rail networks.

In respect of BEMUs, this is just another envelope! Cost comparisons need to be done more systematically using discounted cash flows. There will be no general answer.

Brake wear is lower in (most) electric vehicles due to regenerative breaking, and could be virtually eliminated by use of modern “capturing” drum brakes.

Tyre and road wear is a more difficult challenge, but again amenable to technical progress in tyre construction and to dust capture systems. Battery weight is falling over time. In any case it is a highly localised problem - traffic restrictions may be an appropriate response in some places, but not needed universally.

Metal particulate pollution is very high in underground rail networks.

Oh - and batteries have further uses and are recyclable of course.

 

[Noddy]

That's the problem, back of an envelope and not looking at it seriously.
If the line from Norwich to Ely was electrified once it would be for life. BEMUs would have their batteries renewed every ten years or so due to degradation and discarded in landfill sites. At £60m every ten years, you would have spent in fifty years what electrification would have cost on spent batteries and still not have any electrification to show for it. Having to carry ten tons of batteries around per train for fifty years uses more electricity than straight EMUs and extra electricity used to charge said batteries. What about freight between Norwich and Ely? That would be able to take advantage if the route was wired.
This argument seems so obvious. Have I got it wrong somewhere?

Transdev in Harrogate is spreading porkies to its customers. Its electric buses are not emission free. Because they are very heavy compared to diesel buses they are more destructive to the roads they run on. What is more is that they have greater tyre wear that produces greater amounts of 2.5 particulates from tyre carbon black and from carbon in the asphalt. Both these are carcinogenic and mutatogenic and not good for our health.
On top of this, because they are slow moving heavy vehicles around town, there is greater wear on brake pads and brake discs. There appears to be a connection between brake disc wear and dementia as there are plaques found in the brains of dementia sufferers on post mortem from grey iron that brake discs are made of.
You do not get this from steel wheels on steel rails with rheostatic braking.

Why on earth would you ‘discard’ the batteries in landfill? Not only could they have a second life as static storage, they are full of valuable metals and other materials which will be recycled.

The simple reality is that we can’t electrify everything and BEMU will be great, enabling the industry to (ultimately) get rid of dirty diesels on quieter and more difficult to electrify lines.

 

[Bald Rick]

This argument seems so obvious. Have I got it wrong somewhere?

Yes…

If the line from Norwich to Ely was electrified once it would be for life. BEMUs would have their batteries renewed every ten years or so due to degradation and discarded in landfill sites.

Not so in both cases. Electrification needs maintenance, repair and renewal. The WCML, GEML and LTS lines have all had major parts of the wiring renewed after between 40 and 65 years.

BE!U batteries may not need replacing every ten years, and certainly would not be discarded in landfill sites - they will be used used for grid storage or recycled.

At £60m every ten years, you would have spent in fifty years what electrification would have cost on spent batteries and still not have any electrification to show for it.

Not so. Electrification from Ely North to Trowse Junction would be in the region of £500-600m now, whereas £60m every ten years (which wouldn’t be necessary, see above) has a ‘now‘ cost of rather less than that.

What is more is that they have greater tyre wear that produces greater amounts of 2.5 particulates from tyre carbon black and from carbon in the asphalt.

What percentage more overall on the streets of Harrogate? Would you rather go back to diesel buses then?

there is greater wear on brake pads and brake discs.

Is there? Most electric vehicles have considerably less wear due to regenerative braking.

 

[islandmonkey]

Realistically speaking, could we say goodbye to diesel on the Cornwall branch lines (for example) tomorrow, if we wanted to, through the use of BEMUs? Would the Thames branch lines be better as they have something to charge on when they get back to Twyford/Maidenhead? Gunnislake? Romsey/Salisbury stopper? Even Ore to Hastings?

 

[The exile]

If battery trains are used on the branch lines, due to the time needed to charge the battery, it has to run through onto the main line for a significant distance to allow enough charging time. In such case the capacity of the main line becomes a great problem.

Using the Thames branches as an example, I can't think of how the main line can cope with all branches running through to Paddington.

Thames branches are probably bad examples- for the very reason you mention (though you might manage to squeeze a run to Reading in off the Henley branch). That said, you might be able to squeeze a midday run “under the wires” as well as first and last trains, which together with wiring the bay at the junction stations might be enough.

 

[DavidSM]

Keep up! this https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tra...tric-rapid-charging-bexleyheath-b1035299.html has been discussed elsewhere here, (see https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/whats-this-thing-mounted-over-a-bus-stop.246585/#post-6162082) plus one somewhere in the N of England too - see https://www.transdev.com/en/sustainable-mobility/transdevs-zero-emission-electric-buses-harrogate/
"Transdev’s zero emission electric buses in Harrogate run 400,000 miles" and that was in 2020.

As regards the Transdev item. The bus, single deck pan up between journeys at the bus station. I believe that there are two stands in the bus station where this can be observed by all and sundry.

 

[deltic08]

As regards the Transdev item. The bus, single deck pan up between journeys at the bus station. I believe that there are two stands in the bus station where this can be observed by all and sundry.

I live in Harrogate and have never seen this. I will have to look closer next time I pass. There is a charging station nearby. What if the stands are unusable for a period? Can the buses operate for a whole day without charging?
I notice that they do not venture out of town to Ripon, Pateley Bridge, Wetherby, Otley, York or Leeds

 

[Bald Rick]

Realistically speaking, could we say goodbye to diesel on the Cornwall branch lines (for example) tomorrow, if we wanted to, through the use of BEMUs?

No, not tomorrow, for Cornwall. But many branch lines elsewhere could, especially with some changes to service routes and some small scale electrification at the margins.

 

[Trainbike46]

* The Government published the Transport Decarbonisation plan in July 2021. This has a commitment to make rail ‘Net Zero’ by 2050, with an ‘ambition’ to remove all diesel only passenger trains by 2040. The latter is not a commitment, and neither will it happen.

While I think you will be proved right by this statement (ie there will still be diesel only passenger trains beyond 2040), It is a rather depressing state of affairs that 2 years into a 19-year programme, one of its intended outcomes has already been given up on

 

[DavidSM]

I live in Harrogate and have never seen this. I will have to look closer next time I pass. There is a charging station nearby. What if the stands are unusable for a period? Can the buses operate for a whole day without charging?
I notice that they do not venture out of town to Ripon, Pateley Bridge, Wetherby, Otley, York or Leeds

The route uses buses going to Jennyfield , that goes from the stands near the exit of the bus station. There are two bays and the bus pans up while stood at the stand . Whether passengers are on the bus while charging I have no ides.
the route goes via Betty’s, Spa ,up the hill by the Cairns hotel and down the road to near the hydro and left at the junction . After that I have no idea.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

While I think you will be proved right by this statement (ie there will still be diesel only passenger trains beyond 2040), It is a rather depressing state of affairs that 2 years into a 19-year programme, one of its intended outcomes has already been given up on

Depressing I agree. I really do despair at times. So frustrating

 

[eldomtom2]

No, it isn’t.

* In 2018, Jo Johnson said that he would like to see all diesel only trains to be phased out by 2040.
* This lead to the creation of the Rail Decarbonisation Task Force, to identify what was possible, and the production of Network Rail Traction Decarbonisation Network Study (TDNS) to show what could be done.
* The TDNS was published 3 years ago (July 2020), and demonstrated it could be done, with an ambitious programme of electrification and deployment of battery and hydrogen technology.
* However the TDNS was a selection of options for Government to choose, as it is a policy decision whether to puruse that goal, and if so, how.
* The Government published the Transport Decarbonisation plan in July 2021. This has a commitment to make rail ‘Net Zero’ by 2050, with an ‘ambition’ to remove all diesel only passenger trains by 2040. The latter is not a commitment, and neither will it happen.

Saying you will be net zero by 2050 is in effect saying you will withdraw diesel-only trains by 2050. Of course as stated the government has not provided any plan to do so.

Is there? Most electric vehicles have considerably less wear due to regenerative braking.

Regenerative braking can be done with diesel-electrics...

 

[Bald Rick]

Saying you will be net zero by 2050 is in effect saying you will withdraw diesel-only trains by 2050.

Not necessarily. But I agree that is the implication.
However the point I was making is that it was not and is not Government policy to withdraw diesel trains by 2040.

Regenerative braking can be done with diesel-electrics...

If they have a battery, yes.