Westminster City Council demand immediate end to Class 68 operation into Marylebone due to pollution

[bramling]

There are ways to switch between third and fourth rail relatively easily - happens between Wimbledon and Putney quite frequently.

This works because the system is set up differently, it’s essentially a third rail system with a negative rail bonded to the running rails to accommodate the LU trains, same as found on the Richmond branch and north of Queen’s Park.

Yes this could fairly easily be installed between Harrow and Amersham, especially with resignalling in progress on the section so no compatibility issues to worry about, however who pays? You can guarantee it won’t be Sadiq Khan, and therein lies the problem. In the time taken to sort this, you could probably have electrified to Penzance!

 

[Wolfie]

It would be interesting to see what Roger Ford has to say about all of this. The politician’s haven’t read anything about the subject they are on about clearly. The 68’s have the most updated Diesel engines and emission regulations. Compare that to 30 odd year old 165’s and 20 off year old 168’s which visit and sit there a lot more often.

Make no mistake the end game is no diesels in cities.

 

[BayPaul]

This works because the system is set up differently, it’s essentially a third rail system with a negative rail bonded to the running rails to accommodate the LU trains, same as found on the Richmond branch and north of Queen’s Park.

Yes this could fairly easily be installed between Harrow and Amersham, especially with resignalling in progress on the section so no compatibility issues to worry about, however who pays? You can guarantee it won’t be Sadiq Khan, and therein lies the problem. In the time taken to sort this, you could probably have electrified to Penzance!

If you were building a new fleet of trains for Chiltern routes, would it not be possible to have them dual voltage with the ability to run on OHLE or 4th rail, rather than OHLE and 3rd rail (+diesel or battery as required), to avoid needing to convert the 4th rail. It's not like they need to run on any other 3rd rail routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Make no mistake the end game is no diesels in cities.

Quite right, too.

The end game needs to be no diesels at all, and quick, because if the railway loses its environmental credential Serpell will look like a minor cut.

If you were building a new fleet of trains for Chiltern routes, would it not be possible to have them dual voltage with the ability to run on OHLE or 4th rail, rather than OHLE and 3rd rail (+diesel or battery as required), to avoid needing to convert the 4th rail. It's not like they need to run on any other 3rd rail routes.

Clearly yes, something like that could be built without much difficulty.

 

[Grumbler]

How long will it be before hydrogen-fuelled engines become available?

 

[JonathanH]

How long will it be before hydrogen-fuelled engines become available?

How long will it be before hydrogen can be obtained without using fossil fuels to create it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How long will it be before hydrogen can be obtained without using fossil fuels to create it?

Irrelevant when it comes to the harms caused by particulates and NOx in cities.

 

[BayPaul]

Irrelevant when it comes to the harms caused by particulates and NOx in cities.

How long will it be before hydrogen-fuelled engines become available?

But hydrogen really isn't a sensible solution for the Chiltern in any case. It might make sense for long rural branch lines, but I can't see how it would work for a busy commuter line or a long distance mainline, which Chiltern is both of. The storage of Hydrogen takes a lot of space on trains, which means loss of passenger space or train lengthening, neither of which are really practical for the Chiltern route, transporting it is expensive given its very low density, so it only really makes sense to use it in a place where it can be produced nearby, which I don't think is the case for the Chiltern route, and green hydrogen is in short supply, so should really be rationed to areas where there is no sensible alternative. I'm far from being part of the 'just get the wires up' brigade, but for me the two ends of the Chiltern line are no-brainer 'just get the wires up' areas, that just need to be progressed as fast as possible. The only real question is to what extent you use battery power to reduce the cost of electrification, and what solution you go for for the parts of the line shared with the Met (as shown on here there are lots of options, its just a case of picking the best)

 

[Falcon1200]

Make no mistake the end game is no diesels in cities.

But is it really possible to eliminate all diesel road vehicles from cities, before the same occurs for rail; Bearing in mind that in London, and some (but, certainly far too few, other cities, eg Glasgow) by far the majority of rail traction is non-diesel already ?

As a matter of interest, what proportion of HGV traffic today is propelled by non-polluting, non-fossil fuel using sources, and is there a realistic timescale for total replacement by such vehicles ?

The end game needs to be no diesels at all, and quick, because if the railway loses its environmental credential Serpell will look like a minor cut.

But presumably the cuts, if they do actually happen, will only apply to non-electrified lines ? Although I cannot envisage places such as Plymouth, Swansea and Leicester, to take three random examples, being left with no rail service whatsoever, assuming that their routes are not electrified before the Great Environmental Reckoning.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But presumably the cuts, if they do actually happen, will only apply to non-electrified lines ? Although I cannot envisage places such as Plymouth, Swansea and Leicester, to take three random examples, being left with no rail service whatsoever, assuming that their routes are not electrified before the Great Environmental Reckoning.

There are plenty of important diesel lines left. Would most people notice if the Conwy Valley was turned into a cycle path and replaced by an electric bus service? Probably not, but that's one of the less significant ones.

 

[BayPaul]

But is it really possible to eliminate all diesel road vehicles from cities, before the same occurs for rail; Bearing in mind that in London, and some (but, certainly far too few, other cities, eg Glasgow) by far the majority of rail traction is non-diesel already ?

As a matter of interest, what proportion of HGV traffic today is propelled by non-polluting, non-fossil fuel using sources, and is there a realistic timescale for total replacement by such vehicles ?



But presumably the cuts, if they do actually happen, will only apply to non-electrified lines ? Although I cannot envisage places such as Plymouth, Swansea and Leicester, to take three random examples, being left with no rail service whatsoever, assuming that their routes are not electrified before the Great Environmental Reckoning.

IMO, we've reached the point now where it is unacceptable to just take the line that one industry doesn't need to do anything because another is worse. If it never is possible to get rid of diesel engines on HGVs, then that means that other industries need to do more work, not less, to reduce their impact on climate change.

I don't think there will be calls for a cull on lines where there is a plan for de-carbonisation within a reasonable timescale - either a place on a rolling electrification strategy, or a plan for batteries or hydrogen. The mainlines through all 3 of the cities you mention should certainly be electrified, and Leicester should be fairly soon anyway.

 

[RailWonderer]

I was on the Chiltern line recently and I always wondered why a busy London commuter route with a simple mainline and a couple of branches has still not been electrified yet the LTS out of Fenchurch St was one of the first. Sending all those 168s up to Northern to replace 156s and 150s should be on the agenda in the next decade surely.

 

[Mikey C]

Worth noting that diesels haven't been banned in central London, but have to meet the latest emission standards, Euro 6 for cars and vans, Euro VI for heavy vans, HGVs, buses etc

And this doesn't necessarily mean total replacement either, London still has plenty of elderly buses in service which have been upgraded to Euro VI. 4000 of them were upgraded this way

London's buses now meet ULEZ emissions standards across the entire city

London’s buses now meet ULEZ emissions standards across the entire city

tfl.gov.uk

Around £85m has been invested in retrofitting older diesel buses to meet or exceed the Euro VI emissions standards since 2017.

Each retrofitted bus emits up to 95% less NOx emissions and 80% less particulate matter (PM) than before, leading to significant air quality improvements across London.

 

[Pinus contorta]

I travelled to Preston on (and listened to the 68 in the platforms) while I was waiting for my onwards connection on a few occasions, when it was top & tailing the LHCS trains from Carlisle a few years ago, when the DVT was unavailable.

I watched the driver swapping ends and it still made quite a din until one 68 was no longer powering the carriage heating etc. But it was noticeably quieter in the station once the loco which wasn't under the roof (the North end) took over the heating / lighting supply etc.

The train usually sat for 20 minutes or so and it didn't turn the station into a noxious gaseous exhaust pit while the 68 at the tail end was idling.

Are the residents or the Westminster Council more bothered about the noise or the exhaust or is it just an easy target in comparison to the vehicles in the surrounding streets?

 

[yorksrob]

This works because the system is set up differently, it’s essentially a third rail system with a negative rail bonded to the running rails to accommodate the LU trains, same as found on the Richmond branch and north of Queen’s Park.

Yes this could fairly easily be installed between Harrow and Amersham, especially with resignalling in progress on the section so no compatibility issues to worry about, however who pays? You can guarantee it won’t be Sadiq Khan, and therein lies the problem. In the time taken to sort this, you could probably have electrified to Penzance!

The alternative is just to have fourth rail to Aylesbury. Yes, it will be slightly non-standard for NR services, but it wouldn't be the first time fourth rail was installed on National rail infrastructure (thinking of Watford etc).

 

[zwk500]

The alternative is just to have fourth rail to Aylesbury. Yes, it will be slightly non-standard for NR services, but it wouldn't be the first time fourth rail was installed on National rail infrastructure (thinking of Watford etc).

Good luck getting the blessing of the ORR. It's also less efficient in terms of power usage and more expensive over a whole-life basis

 

[Falcon1200]

IMO, we've reached the point now where it is unacceptable to just take the line that one industry doesn't need to do anything because another is worse.

I agree fully that regardless of the road industry, rail must endeavour to reduce its emissions and dependence on fossil fuels - But there are limits on what can be done within a reasonable time scale and at an acceptable cost.

If it never is possible to get rid of diesel engines on HGVs, then that means that other industries need to do more work, not less, to reduce their impact on climate change.

Not sure I agree with that however, it is not the rail industry's responsibility to compensate for the failure of others, especially when those others are their direct competitors !

The mainlines through all 3 of the cities you mention should certainly be electrified, and Leicester should be fairly soon anyway.

Fully agree with that, and hope progress is made soon, but Plymouth in particular will take a while to see electric trains, given that the wires have not even reached Bristol Temple Meads yet.

 

[BayPaul]

Not sure I agree with that however, it is not the rail industry's responsibility to compensate for the failure of others, especially when those others are their direct competitors !

The rail industry is part of government, and no doubt the government is looking at the country as a whole, and low hanging fruit / impossible to upgrade / somewhere in between across the board.

 

[Geezertronic]

I have noticed that the Wales train (one or two x 158) now stops its engines at Birmingham International between terminating and leaving, and the XC services I caught last week (220/221) also switched the engines off whilst waiting to start the service at both Birmingham New Street and Newcastle

 

[island]

The alternative is just to have fourth rail to Aylesbury. Yes, it will be slightly non-standard for NR services, but it wouldn't be the first time fourth rail was installed on National rail infrastructure (thinking of Watford etc).

New 3rd/4th rail installations on the mainline aren't going to happen due to the H&S implications.

 

[option]

Obviously written by someone who doesn't live in London and thinks that they know the price of everything and actually know the value of nothing. How about London raised taxes bring spent in London and stuff the rest of the country. That is about the facile level of your argument.

Alternatively how about those affected by the pollution litigate against the polluters?

Are you claiming that the Business Rates & various levies that someone like Sainsbury's pays on their London HQ are 100% covered by their London stores? Corporation Tax?
That their non-London stores don't pay anything towards the HQ staff, who are paying Income Tax & NI, & spending money in London & therefore paying VAT?

You do know that VAT, one of the three biggest sources of tax revenue, isn't accounted for on a location basis...

What about the taxes that MPs pay, where are you claiming they are raised?

Make no mistake the end game is no diesels in cities.

I doubt anyone disagrees with that.
But you seem to be of the view that London, for whatever reason, must achieve that before anywhere else is allowed more electrification than what they have now.


If Westminster Council were genuine, they would put in work alongside Mayor of London, WMCA, Warwick DC, Oxford & others to produce a plan for key parts of the Chiltern network to be electrified, therefore enabling bi-modes. They could then jointly push that plan up the political ladder in Government, with support from multiple MPs.
That would get all diesel (CO2, PMs & noise) out of Marylebone.

 

[158756]

This is a large proportion of the problem, Chiltern are not going to do anything because it would cost them, and have no benefit, and their sucessors are not aware that they will be successors until too late for them to have anything in place.

Chiltern would not want the extra passengers.

Chiltern and their successors would never do anything about it (the diesel issue that is, they could have replaced the 68s with less noisy diesels) because AFAIK there is no train currently in production which could reasonably be operated into Marylebone on anything other than diesel.

What it needs is electrification, but with the enormous price tag only central government is going to fund it. Throwing even more money at the railway, especially a railway in London, is understandably not flavour of the month at the Treasury right now. As others have said, this situation cannot go on for long. The way things are going at the moment an outright ban on diesel in London, at least for uses where there is an alternative, probably isn't that far off. The Chiltern lines (and freight) will go electric or disappear.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What it needs is electrification, but with the enormous price tag only central government is going to fund it. Throwing even more money at the railway, especially a railway in London, is understandably not flavour of the month at the Treasury right now. As others have said, this situation cannot go on for long. The way things are going at the moment an outright ban on diesel in London, at least for uses where there is an alternative, probably isn't that far off. The Chiltern lines (and freight) will go electric or disappear.

Some have suggested that diverting it into Old Oak and closing Marylebone might solve that, and indeed it might. This is the sort of thing the railway must fear - diesel loses the environmental credential, and then the railway has nothing.

You might just about get away with branch line DMUs on 100% biodiesel with exhaust scrubbers fitted (as I believe the Network Rail MPVs have to allow them to operate in the Merseyrail tunnels with passengers there, and I can confirm that having been stood at a Merseyrail underground station when one went through it didn't give me a nose full of particulates in the manner that a Voyager does). But absolutely not into the centres of large cities. There should be so few of these left that Classes 195, 196 and 197 should probably be it.

 

[HSTEd]

Some have suggested that diverting it into Old Oak and closing Marylebone might solve that, and indeed it might. This is the sort of thing the railway must fear - diesel loses the environmental credential, and then the railway has nothing.

Well the argument could be made that doing that might be a better choice for passengers regardless - it essentially becomes Crossrail vs the Bakerloo line. And I'm not sure the Bakerloo wins that.

But I don't think people fully realise the precarious situation the railway finds itself in.

The railway can't afford to be operating diesels, especially ancient polluting diesels, 15 years from now in any significant numbers.

They all have to go or the railway will perish.

The railway has two options - work out how to deliver electrification on the cheap, BR-style, or go all in on battery trains immediately.

 

[bramling]

Clearly yes, something like that could be built without much difficulty.

It's undesirable to be carrying negative shoes around, though of course if the fleet was dedicated to Marylebone to Aylesbury then this is less of an issue. But what happens south of Harrow and north of Amersham?

 

[yorksrob]

Good luck getting the blessing of the ORR. It's also less efficient in terms of power usage and more expensive over a whole-life basis

Well the argument could be made that doing that might be a better choice for passengers regardless - it essentially becomes Crossrail vs the Bakerloo line. And I'm not sure the Bakerloo wins that.

But I don't think people fully realise the precarious situation the railway finds itself in.

The railway can't afford to be operating diesels, especially ancient polluting diesels, 15 years from now in any significant numbers.

They all have to go or the railway will perish.

The railway has two options - work out how to deliver electrification on the cheap, BR-style, or go all in on battery trains immediately.

And yet we're fannying around worrying about extending the live rail.

The ORR needs a rocket up its backside.

 

[bramling]

The alternative is just to have fourth rail to Aylesbury. Yes, it will be slightly non-standard for NR services, but it wouldn't be the first time fourth rail was installed on National rail infrastructure (thinking of Watford etc).

You could do it (indeed 4-rail could simplify the AC/DC interfaces), subject to the powers that be allowing an extension of the 4-rail system to Aylesbury.

None of this is desirable though. The optimal solution seems to be to convert the LU section to bonded 4th rail, and AC everywhere else.

The whole Chiltern setup will need a thorough think from top to bottom, including what happens regarding depot arrangements going forward. This in turn means thinking about where crews are based too. In a perfect world Aylesbury Depot would be ditched, it's simply too small. If Marylebone-Aylesbury is going to have its own dedicated EMU fleet, then perhaps Aylesbury could be retained for that.

 

[BayPaul]

It's undesirable to be carrying negative shoes around, though of course if the fleet was dedicated to Marylebone to Aylesbury then this is less of an issue. But what happens south of Harrow and north of Amersham?

The simplest plan I can see would be OHLE Marylebone - Harrow and again from Amersham to Aylesbury Parkway, with two change over points on each route, and a dual-voltage 4 rail / OHLE train. Alternatively, also put batteries on the train, and use them north of Amersham

 

[HSTEd]

None of this is desirable though. The optimal solution seems to be to convert the LU section to bonded 4th rail, and AC everywhere else.

That was considered to be the optimum solution when we were using hilariously underpriced numbers for AC railway electrification.

Like that hilarious stat that claimed it would be cheaper to convert to 25kV than do renewals on third rail.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's undesirable to be carrying negative shoes around, though of course if the fleet was dedicated to Marylebone to Aylesbury then this is less of an issue. But what happens south of Harrow and north of Amersham?

25kV connected to the rest of it.

Before anyone says that's an issue, Thameslink appears not to be. The busiest, most intensively worked heavy railway in the UK has been happily changing over between DC and AC at its busiest station for what, 30 years?

That was considered to be the optimum solution when we were using hilariously underpriced numbers for AC railway electrification.

Like that hilarious stat that claimed it would be cheaper to convert to 25kV than do renewals on third rail.

Despite that, 25kV is the only sensible option for the rump Chiltern Line. Thus if the Aylesbury bit will continue to run into Marylebone, and on the assumption that you'll do Risborough to Aylesbury on that too (because it's a short branch, and unless you move the depot elsewhere the units have to get there somehow), it is the only sensible option. You can't easily have long sections of dual electrification, so dual-mode units are the only option.

There is no reason they could not be dedicated to the route. It's different in character to the rest of it anyway, so fixed formation Crossrail-like units would work well. Or to look at it the other way round, a further order for S-stock with a pantograph and transformer, assuming they would fit into Marylebone.