Why is Electrification in England progressing much slower ?

[najaB]

Just like maglevs, i don’t think batteries are going to become the main form of powering our railways

Well, that's true almost by definition. Batteries have to be charged somehow, they aren't an energy source in their own right. What BEMUs allow is for electrification projects to proceed at pace without getting held up because of the 'difficult bits'.

 

[tbtc]

i know that this might go down badly with some of the electrification “purists” on here but one advantage of technology like batteries is that we can trial various self powered technologies whilst benefiting from an electrified “core”

We’ll make mistakes, of course, bound to with any emerging technologies, don’t be scared to break some eggs, but we don’t have to bet everything on one fuel

So we could have some bi-modes with batteries, some with hydrogen, some with old-school diesel engines, some with technologies so new I’ve not even heard of them… but all using the electrified line on the busy notes of the route

This means that the (vast majority of the) infrastructure investment can happen separately to the investment in new stock (and trials to see with one/ones are chosen), rather than spending everything on something like Maglev and being stuck with it for decades

 

[YourMum666]

Well, that's true almost by definition. Batteries have to be charged somehow, they aren't an energy source in their own right. What BEMUs allow is for electrification projects to proceed at pace without getting held up because of the 'difficult bits'.

which is why i think at least all of the mainlines and some very important railways will get ohle while the rest use battery

 

[Annetts key]

It’s alright, soon we will have nuclear fusion powered trains…

 

[Wtloild]

However the bi-mode has enabled progressive electrification - ie the Midland Main Line being done without having to wait until the end to replace the trains, and being able to be done in stages rather than one huge risky block of work and finance.
If XC went bi-mode then lots of schemes get more purpose without the entire XC network being electrified.

XC with bi-modes would reduce diesel under the wires running significantly & reduce the smog at several major stations.
Might also improve the case for small to medium in-fill projects & give us a more cohesive network.

 

[E27007]

The slow progress in electrification is surely down to the simple fact, projects such as WCML and GW failed, over-running in time and money (GW by 300%).
There is little to no confidence that NR can deliver an electrification project to a reasonable timescale or budget

 

[Annetts key]

The slow progress in electrification is surely down to the simple fact, projects such as WCML and GW failed, over-running in time and money (GW by 300%).
There is little to no confidence that NR can deliver an electrification project to a reasonable timescale or budget

So are we saying that the two British Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers are a failure because they were late and over budget?

The simple fact is, that if the country actually did the research needed to get a really good understanding of the cost of any proposed large construction project AND included a worse case of inflation and rising costs in their estimated project cost, absolutely nothing would get government approval to go ahead.

Were mistakes made? Yes. Was there a level of incompetence? Yes. But lessons were learned. But if you stop the electrification like the government did. Then leave it for many years, a lot of the experience will disappear and then mistakes will be made again when you start a new electrification project.

Anyway, at the moment, little to no confidence that our current government can deliver any project to a reasonable timescale or budget. The government is (nearly) full of people who clearly don’t have a clue and who won’t listen to people who do know what they are talking about (granted there are a couple of ministers who are being sensible).

Also, I’m not in favour of fixed budgets in the first place. Myself, I have NEVER had my own fixed budget, EVER. Instead there should be an agreed objective (for example, we want to install an OHL system between place X and place Y), then funding should be made available for as many weeks/months/years as the project needs until it’s completed. And yes, obviously there needs to be a system of oversight to identify waste, inefficiency, other problems and to hold the management of the project to account.

 

[najaB]

The slow progress in electrification is surely down to the simple fact, projects such as WCML and GW failed, over-running in time and money (GW by 300%).
There is little to no confidence that NR can deliver an electrification project to a reasonable timescale or budget

Is a project going over budget a failure of project management, or a failure of cost estimation?

 

[Taunton]

Also, I’m not in favour of fixed budgets in the first place ... obviously there needs to be a system of oversight to identify waste, inefficiency, other problems and to hold the management of the project to account.

Um ... that's called a budget.

 

[Annetts key]

Um ... that's called a budget.

So the definition is generally considered to be “to plan how much money you will spend on something”. What I am suggesting is considerably different to that…
What’s your definition of a budget then?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

You will never get a blank cheque to build something specified and managed by engineers.
There will always be push-back from funders who care about how their money will be spent.
For a time, Network Rail thought it was immune to those kind of pressures - it wasn't.
Crossrail and now HS2 have discovered that, too.
It's also why there is such debate over the scope of the TRU and NPR projects.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

You will never get a blank cheque to build something specified and managed by engineers.

I am a STEM person myself and you are correct. We can be the worst when it comes to stuff like that.

 

[snowball]

Death of bionic duckweed?

Big oil firms touted algae as climate solution. Now all have pulled funding

Insiders aren’t surprised as ExxonMobil, the last remaining proponent of green algae biofuel, ends research

www.theguardian.com

One by one, big oil firms have touted their investments in algae biofuels as the future of low-carbon transportation – and one by one, they have all dropped out. Now in the wake of the last remaining algae proponent, ExxonMobil, announcing its withdrawal, insiders say they are disappointed but not surprised.

Algae research was central to Exxon’s green marketing campaigns for years, and frequently criticized as greenwashing rather than a genuine research effort.

But several of its former research partners told the Guardian that it was serious about the potential of algae biofuels – explaining why it stayed in the field long past the point at which other oil companies dropped out – but not serious enough.

In its 12 years in the space, Exxon invested $350m in algae biofuels, according to spokesperson Casey Norton. (Norton says that’s more than double what the company spent on touting this research in ads.)

Even so, every algae researcher who spoke to the Guardian said a real effort to commercialize biofuels, algal or otherwise, requires several billion dollars, and a long-term dedication to overcoming seemingly fundamental biological limitations of wild organisms. And no oil company was willing to go that far.

“It’s very challenging and very expensive to bring these technologies to market,” said George Huber, whose biofuels research at the University of Wisconsin at Madison was funded by Exxon for years. “It’s not gonna happen overnight. It’s great they make these commitments, but you know they need to start putting more capital into these projects.”

He added: “They’re driven by Wall Street and they have to keep their stock prices high and keep their shareholders happy. And usually that’s making a large amount of money. All the oil companies have been talking about the need to get into more sustainable things, but it’s hard to make money with. And most of their money comes from oil.”

Much more at the link.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I hope so but ammonia is now being touted.