Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,772
|
Post by Chris M on Mar 23, 2007 2:03:58 GMT
Modern Railways have started a petition on the Number 10 website to get the DfT to "within six months, update the 1981 joint Department of Transport/British Rail ‘Review of main line electrification’ to take into account current installation and energy costs and rail traffic levels; and, if the positive conclusions of the original report still stand, revive the proposals for a rolling programme of main line electrification in Britain." More details and the sign-up (if you want to) are at petitions.pm.gov.uk/Electrify/ |
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Mar 23, 2007 7:49:48 GMT
Unfortunately the (environmental) science and technology no longer support mass electrification (let alone economics), so I won't be voting: it's all changed in the last year. There is even a strong case for getting rid of the wires altogether, but that's a bit strong IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tubeboy on Mar 23, 2007 8:14:05 GMT
Even on electrified main lines, the amount of running with diesel traction, or "Diesels under the wires", is shocking. The WCML is the main offender.
There has been talk in the last few years to de-electrify the ECML, apart from the commuter network at the Southern end.
|
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Mar 23, 2007 9:07:55 GMT
For Electrification: Trains have better power/weight ratio; energy source can be coal, oil, gas, nuclear, bio fuels, wind, sea, etc.; trains don't have to drag round their own fuel oil; no pollution at the user end; refuelling depots and trips for refuelling not necessary; less noise (particularly on MUs); can provide regeneration for energy recovery; can be used to maintain energy to stabled trains.
Against: Expensive to install and maintain; earthing; interference; safety issues for emergency and maintenance on track and in depots; signal sighting; supply failure disrupts more than one train; more complex to operate; lack of diversionary routes; vulnerable to adverse weather; needs heavy traffic to make it worthwhile.
Answer: Electrify Midland Main Line and GW Main lines to Penzance and Swansea as a minimum. Provide links between MML, ECML, WCML. Consider electrification Birmingham to Bristol - Exeter.
Whatever you do, DO NOT BUY ANY MORE DMUs for long distance services. Voyagers and Meridians are dreadful, vibrating masses of heavy equipment which gulp fuel, destroy the track and shake themselves (and the poor passengers) to pieces. *pant pant* - rant over.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2007 17:59:02 GMT
I saw a British Transport Film once, titles Wires Across the Border, about the electrification of the north end of the West Coast Main Line [WCML] it mentioned statistics about miles of opper cable, number of catenary supports.... but did not mention the total cost involved, not just for the wires, but for new track, trains, signals etc...
Indeed there are some routes that could benefit from electrification; take Tunbridge Wells to Hastings, that was juiced via the 'Third Rail' in 1986! [Gauging issues with tunnels prevented it being included in the Kent Electrification Scheme of the late 1950's and early 1960's]
|
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Mar 23, 2007 19:40:17 GMT
Diversionary routes can easily be sorted out with a few thunderbirds positioned strategically.
It's not viable for anything but the mainline routes that have say over one train per hour at present - but it's much nicer traveling on a 225 than on a Voyager.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tubeboy on Mar 23, 2007 19:46:35 GMT
I agree with Tubeprune that the wires should be extended North of Bedford, there must be a case for this. HST2 is a while off yet.
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Mar 23, 2007 20:00:58 GMT
Tubeprune has produced a long list against, but missed the main one:
Fossil fuels burned in a power station are at best 39% efficient, usually more like 34-5%. A further 2-4% is lost in transmission as heat in the wires, then conductors.
Against this, diesel burned in a modern turbo combustion engine is nearer 65% and improving yearly.
After the engine the rest of the train propulsion system is the same (diesel-electric) or just as good (hydraulic gearbox transmission), so energy losses due to friction etc. are identical.
So if we are serious about railways reducing their carbon-footprint (yeuk!) there is only one way to go. Burn the fossil fuels at point of need, not remotely.
BUT - as for underfloor engines I'm with TP 100% ;D
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,772
|
Post by Chris M on Mar 23, 2007 20:46:41 GMT
In terms of the air pollution generated by burning fossil fuels, it is far easier (and I guess cost efficient as well) to manage a concentrated source than it is the same amount of pollution distributed over the length of a railway line.
Underfloor engines really are not suitable for long distances.
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Mar 23, 2007 23:06:28 GMT
In terms of the air pollution generated by burning fossil fuels, it is far easier (and I guess cost efficient as well) to manage a concentrated source than it is the same amount of pollution distributed over the length of a railway line. Maybe, but to restate the obvious it is only HALF the pollution in total  ; and the argument about whether to keep it all in one place or spread it out is the biggie, whether we are talking about rubbish, nuclear waste, chemicals or whatever. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Mar 23, 2007 23:21:22 GMT
We buy a lot of power from France, and theyre nuclear mostly. AND if the new generation of plants goes ahead we'll rely even less on fossil fuels. What may or may not be ecconomically sound now really doesnt matter in the long run. True, the industry has changed a lot in the past couple of years, and over the next ten will continue to, but if we had more trolly buses instead of buses and EMUs instead of DMUs in the long term we'd be laughing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tubeboy on Mar 24, 2007 10:41:33 GMT
Peter Hendy [TFL Comissioner] has said the chances of Trolleybuses returning to the streets of London are extremely unlikely..  |
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Mar 24, 2007 11:13:44 GMT
In terms of the air pollution generated by burning fossil fuels, it is far easier (and I guess cost efficient as well) to manage a concentrated source than it is the same amount of pollution distributed over the length of a railway line. Precisely - you only need to pay for ONE large treatment plane rather than MANY smaller plants, which remember have to be engineered to run on a train, fit in a small space, work with no mains electricity/water supply, etc etc... |
|
; and the argument about whether to keep it all in one place or spread it out is the biggie, whether we are talking about rubbish, nuclear waste, chemicals or whatever.
