So we make commitments at COP26 then head in a potentially different direction?
I'm not sure exactly what commitments we made at COP26 but either they didn't say anything meaningful on transport or we are not implementing them, because we are still heading in the same direction as we were prior to COP26. That direction being AWAY from a zero-carbon transport system.
Doesn't surprise me. It's sad really but let's be honest, what the UK does won't really have any effect globally.
I would like to see hybrid battery diesel (with adblue systems and maybe running biofuels) ordered to replace the 150/3/6 fleets (with AC options where necessary) as there will be a lot of more rural lines where full electrification won't reach.
Assuming the rest of the word went net-zero and the UK carried on as currently, would the UK's emissions be within the safe limit for the world as a whole? I wouldn't be surprised either way.
Have you studied the map in the TDNS? Because, if anything approaching that were to be implemented, an AC (or 3rd rail) mode would be necessary virtually everywhere (and there are more than enough 195s and 196s already to cover the few areas where it's not). My view is that a large fleet of bi-mode units should be ordered to replace classes 155-159 with deliveries spread over 2024-2030 with all units having AC OHLE capability and some also having 3rd rail for Cardiff-Portsmouth and Waterloo-Exeter (potential for pantographs to be left off a subfleet for that route). Away from electrified routes, these could be hybrid battery diesel, hydrogen or just plain battery depending on the route, but given where we are with the TDNS the hybrid battery diesel option is probably going to be the most widely suitable. Class 150s (other than the TfW ones being replaced by the new Metro units) in my view should be dealt with through cascades of 195s/196s/197s driven largely by TPE electrification (included in the IRP) releasing 185s.
they need to get on with authorising either conversions or retrofits as the technology is well proven.
Agreed, diesel-battery-hybrids appear to be a lower-carbon option than hydrogen at present and converting existing units makes a lot more sense to me than building a new fleet that doesn't have at least passive provision for a pantograph.
My suspicion is that it could have been the implied attitude of 'we need the money, everything needs to be electrified, if you don't give us the money we'll accuse you of not caring about the planet' that p***ed off the treasury. A more nuanced plan might have fared better. And the S&C was just one standout example, there were an awful lot of lines with similar issues, or with other potential solutions. I wouldn't be surprised if it was possible to reduce the required new wires by around a third and still fully decarbonise (very rough guess, I'm sure I'll be proved wrong!)
I'm not sure it is possible to 'fully decarbonise' anything - net-zero is a different story and if you can find enough land to leave to forest for carbon sequestration then you could potentially do it with the current pitiful extent of electrification. Problem is you are competing with many other emitters for that forest. I've not read the thing cover-to-cover, but from the bit of the TDNS I'm looking at right now, even with routes such as the S&C wired up, they would still need some diesel locos for freight work with a further 2,100 STK of electrification (costing an additional £3bn-£4bn) required to eliminate that. So, although ambitious, the TDNS isn't quite 'everything needs to be electrified'.
The problem with hydrogen is that electricity is needed to ‘make’ it. As converting electricity to hydrogen and then back to electricity is less efficient than distributing and directly using electricity, that means we need even more electrical generation. You also have to transport and distribute the hydrogen.
There are other ways to make hydrogen, I think one is called something like 'steam methane reforming', but they have an even bigger greenhouse gas footprint. Electrification is still the most-efficient way to run a railway other than a few of the most lightly-used branches.
Arguably the principal fault here lies with Sunak. He is a dangerous fiscal hawk with zero regard to climate change funding.
Why single out Sunak? Much of the government (not just the current one, but for decades) seem to have a dangerous disregard for decarbonisation.
Some people would say that it's reasonable for a Government to question why electrification costs are so high (especially when battery technology means that we could have trains using the electricity through Manchester meaning no pollution in the city centre)
Not
@yorksrob though, he's found a conspiracy, where the Government is run by Beeching throwbacks - it couldn't just be because the railway industry has made even modest schemes unaffordable as far as politicians are concerned - no - the blame must lie with the Government...
Aye, it's reasonable to question why costs are so high, with a view to reducing them on future schemes. But to suggest that £30bn over the best part of 30 years is
unaffordable when not long ago the Government were boasting (and will probably do so again with another re-announcement at some point) of spending £30bn on the motorway and trunk road network over just five years is nonsense. Yes it would be nice if it was cheaper, but if the Government was serious about decarbonisation they could raise enough money through cutting schemes that damage the climate to pay for it.
Kiss goodbye to a lot of branch lines then (where it'd be better for the environment if every passenger went in a taxi than a DMU chugging along at a couple of miles to the gallon)
Is that what you want?
Because that's what'll happen...
Not sure about taxis but, if we could replace certain lightly-used branches with regular bus services 19 hours a day, 7 days per week AND get people to use said buses rather than switch to private cars then maybe closing the odd branch wouldn't be a bad idea.
I expect its hidden somewhere on the various threads already, but to play devils advocate if you were the treasury and were comparing the carbon produced via the railway vs other modes or power generation or any number of carbon producers, would it be high up your list? If you got a percentage out of cars and onto trains there is still a carbon reduction for example. We need to electrify more, but as an outsider would you look at it the same way?
Modal shift from diesel cars to diesel trains and buses would certainly be a carbon reduction; it might be interesting to compare that with a change from diesel train to electric train. This could, potentially, be valid reason for not electrifying the railways (if you can achieve the necessary reduction in GHG emissions at lower cost through modal shift to diesel trains) but that isn't the suituation at the moment. We're not seeing the Treasury saying "we won't electrify the railways because it's cheaper to get everyone to switch from cars to buses and we'll save at least as much carbon that way", instead getting people out of cars is largely ignored, in fact getting more people into cars is still being encouraged with £30bn on road investments!
Yes but there's always the fear that offsetting schemes are likely to be more or less scams. The demand for offsetting from businesses and governments wanting to portray themselves as green is likely to exceed the world's capacity for genuine offsetting.
An important point that: there is a finite amount of offseting that can be done. It would be interesting to know what the world's capacity for genuine offsetting is - ie. what is the maximum CO2e that can be emmitted each year globably for the world to be 'net-zero'?