[Closed] Diesels are evil, except when on rails?

And buses and trucks and tractors and combine harvesters and forklifts and ships?

nope, defo evil on rails too

[img] /revision/latest?cb=20130120144321[/img]

But isn't the point you have one diesel engine carrying hundreds of people in a train as opposed to a hundred diesel engines carrying a hundred people in their cars?

And Woodburning Stoves.

[img] [/img]

Trucks, buses, ships, wood burning stoves; there isn't a effective workable 'green' replacement for them, whereas trains there has been that replacement since the 1950s and yet in amoungst all this hype for electic transport being the future and how everybody should scrap their Skoda Octavia, it is fine for there to be absolutely no interest in electrifying the rail network and all new trains to be electric.

Meanwhile the rail industry is buying brand new diesel trains and this is fine.

No, it's not. Commitments to full electrification have been rolled back, and this is a bad thing.

But yes, diesel trains are still better than diesel cars.

No, it's not

Well there's hybrid ones.

Is that true, though? You ever looked at the state of the track bed where a diesel engine accelerates out of a station and it's jet black with soot from the engines.

Trains are rarely full either.

Same reason more people can't just take the train as opposed to a car, lack of investment.

Networks are being electrified, EGIP is currently underway in Scotland and will eventually be electrified up to Dunblane. The reality is that a lot of our rail network can't be upgraded just like that because the same victorian infrastructure that restricts loading gauge also restricts height in many cases and so track beds need to be dug out to the required clearances for overhead lines. This is not a small job.

When I grow up I want my teleport to run on diesel.

Molgrips - you missed my sarcasm,

Like you say electricfication is being rolled back so much for the environment and all that.

Also could someone tell me what euro emission standard a class 150 diesel train complies to since that type is currently being run in various parts of the country and was built in the 1980s, so I'm sure it's nice and clean running and that's just one example.

Trains are rarely full either.

you should commute round here - trains are frequently so full that you physically cannot squeeze more people on, and even during the middle of the day run at > 50% seat occupancy.

Electrifying train lines isn't trivial. You need to close tracks for weeks or months which causes massive disruption. The outcome may make it justified but it is unpopular in the short term. But it wont take 23yrs so, to achieve it in the same time scale no need to start now...

How much do trains actually contribute to the NOx problem they are seeking to address with phasing out diesel cars? NOx issues seem to be very localised to slow moving heavy traffic (if I believe the local propaganda here), we don't seem many trains doing 5mph down the high st.

Trucks, buses, ships, [b]wood burning stoves[/b]; there isn't a effective workable 'green' replacement for them,

really... you can't think of any other way to heat your home? And trams are a viable alternative to buses, and electric buses are available (and with depots etc - charging is reasonably feasible). Not much inner city pollution comes from ships...

In Merseyside , we have diesel buses, diesel electric buses and pure electric buses, we also have buses running on gas, we have electric trains running off 3rfd rail and off 25,000 volt catenary, we also have 2 diesel powered passenger cross river ferries, yet a lot of residents still choose to travel in polluting cars.

And a few days ago the governmnet canceled large scaled eletrification of a lot of national lines and is now planing to put diesel engines under what where to be new pure electric trains, increasing the weight and lowering the top speed also requiring more staff to maintain the things as well as more stores and parts, and much more maintance.

Trucks, buses, ships, wood burning stoves; there isn't a effective workable 'green' replacement for them,

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

*ahem*

Networks are being electrified,

Some.

Diesel Trains don't sit stuck in traffic in city centres side by side with throngs of pedestrians breathing their idling fumes. Innit.

But they do sit idling at platforms that are filled with hundreds of commuters. Been on the platforms at Birmingham New Street lately? The fumes are horrendous, they feel worse than any road I've ever been on.

Some.

I never implied otherwise.

Well there's hybrid ones.

All diesel trains are hybrids, so they're green, right?

But they do sit idling at platforms that are filled with hundreds of commuters. Been on the platforms at Birmingham New Street lately? The fumes are horrendous, they feel worse than any road I've ever been on.

Don't often see a diesel train parked up with the engine running outside the local school every morning and evening. Been in lots of stations and the fumes have never bothered me as much as the acrid stench from a row of SUVs 🙂

Only been through Birmingham New Street, never stopped. Isn't it enclosed with little ventilation anyway?

Just leads me to think that it's just more greenwash and that nobody really wants to [s]create[/s] [u]Pay for[/u] a diesel petrol engine free environment for us to live in...

FTFY

I say de-electrify the railways and reintroduce Deltics.

Meanwhile the rail industry is buying brand new diesel trains and this is fine.

Because the government has cancelled large parts of the electrification scheme. But as others have said, diesel pollution from trains is trivial in comparison to cars.

Squirrelking

Not sure how "workable" your truck is where the company (Smiths) isn't currently trading.....

Trucks like that have been attempted for years - my dad designed the electric Leyland Terrier and Roadrunner 30-40 years ago, where funnily they were waiting for the next big thing battery development to arrive in production (sounds familiar). They had a few running round in service on lead acid with reasonable performance but nothing ever went mainstream.

I'm really surprised trolley buses haven't come back to the UK. They exist in other countries, no battery expense, no range issues, lightweight and simple. They need infrastructure but nothing we couldn't manage 60 years ago so hardly impossible and would be a quick fix for city centre NOx.

Diesel locomotives are covered by Euro emissions standards. There won't be any more Class 66 locomotives built, because they don't meet the latest version of the standards.
Yes, there are loads of older locos still running, but they are gradually getting phased out, or getting refurbished with new engines.

Though, yes, there needs to be a lot more electrification. But its a lot of work, and who's going to pay for it.
Or battery powered trains may be an option for some lines. There have been a few trials recently.

Virtually all construction plant.

Been watching Great Western Line electrification work going on as I drive over the line every other day. A lot of work involved it seems.

Have heard it's going to be half arsed though with some bits not electric as they can't afford it, so the trains will be hybrid.

Not sure if they're doing through the Severn tunnel any more.

Anyway, what we need is nuclear power

[url= http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RXyaRZrfYPg/TjFT0xTb1LI/AAAAAAAABAA/n8nAv9MHOjs/s1600/The_Big_Bus2.jp g" target="_blank">http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RXyaRZrfYPg/TjFT0xTb1LI/AAAAAAAABAA/n8nAv9MHOjs/s1600/The_Big_Bus2.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

Have heard it's going to be half arsed though with some bits not electric as they can't afford it, so the trains will be hybrid.

Yes, the bi-mode trains are much heavier and more expensive than electric-only, and now Hitachi are having to make more of them because the government has scrapped large parts of the electrification scheme.

Not sure if they're doing through the Severn tunnel any more.

They are, they've canned Cardiff to Swansea.

A good chunk of the stock was always going to be bi-mode because they were never electrifying all the way to Penzance.

Edit: crossed with Ransos.

what we need is nuclear power

The Big Bus!

A disaster (in every sense) movie to remember.

its a lot of work, and who's going to pay for it.

Basically sums up this whole thread.

GWEP has been substantially cut back, but a lot of work has been done in readiness, so when the decision - which will come unless Brexit completely bankrupts the country - is made to continue the electrification it'll be easier and can be run under the new CP6 regime.
The HLOS was published last week, and dependent upon the SoFA to be published in October - that'll indicate the proposed direction of future investment.
GWEP is going to Cardiff - so the Severn Tunnel works have IIRC been substantially completed.

IMO Electric cars are being rolled out because we need them as a giant private battery bank for the national grids renewable energy (Solar/wind), the environmental / air pollution reasons are secondary.

As the national grid increases its solar and wind farm capacities, there's an increasing need for a battery bank. Obviously solar and wind farms can't produce power on demand at peek times, so a battery bank is needed to such energy from at these times. It's been the main argument against renewable energy sources, however if there were 20million electric vehicles and 50% were smart connected to the national grid this would be a solution.

random internet source...

[url= http://www.beagleybrown.com/planes-trains-or-automobiles-carbon-emissions-compared-for-different-forms-of-transport/ ]fancy fandangly graph doo dah[/url]

... says that taking the train is worse than driving a small diesel car - but only if the car is full.

1 man car journeys, the existing train network is 1/3 the CO2 emissions... per mile.

Of course it's not that simple etc etc blah blah.

But the big contributors are;

private transport (us)
commercial transport (amazon)

and guess who's easiest to hit? us.

trains don't make squat difference, end of the day

oh, and, what monkeyboy said about cars being a big battery, we're not storing wind power using pumped hydroelectric any time soon

however if there were 20million electric vehicles and 50% were smart connected to the national grid this would be a solution.

Not entirely sure you'd be able to sell that to consumers.
*Arrives home on a Friday night and puts car on charge for trip to trail centre Saturday morning*
*Unfortunately, unknown to me its national cook a turkey dinner at 3am day*
*Wake up to find car only half charged because grid decided to use my car to cook Mrs Jones's turkey*
*Drives half charged car to showroom to exchange for a petrol powered version*

diesel pollution from trains is trivial in comparison to cars

Just because something is trivial compared to something else doesn't make it trivial in it's own right. A nuclear bomb is trivial compared to the sun, but that doesn't make it a good thing to have.

Perhaps they should scrap HS2 and spend the money on more worthwhile projects, such as electrifying the remaining lines.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35717927 ]This[/url] is probably worth a read for anyone who feels that diesel trains aren't an issue.

Just because something is trivial compared to something else doesn't make it trivial in it's own right. A nuclear bomb is trivial compared to the sun, but that doesn't make it a good thing to have.

Ludicrous hyperbole alert!

I'd buy an electric car. The way I work suits the range perfectly. The price isn't huge for something small mild the leaf. But I'm not certain I understand how much the battery leasing costs or works.

Me too, electric works for me. I can charge overnight, reliably. I need 40 miles a day. Go me!

However, I have a car purchase budget of about £5, so "transport" is a 10 year old mondeo or whatever banger comes our way - right now I'm inheriting the last family wagon so its going to be a good few cycles of car purchases before I ever go electric.

I'd swing for an electric bike (I know, the horror, but I have to arrive sweat free) if my commute didn't involve several life threatening ratruns and the need to transport kids in a wife-approved fashion.

Not entirely sure you'd be able to sell that to consumers.

Very easily... "here Mr Smith, have £100 a year for sometimes letting us use a few percent of your car's battery for a few hours"

A fully charged Zoe would power our entire house for over a week - the battery is nearly three times the size of the largest Tesla Powerwall domestic battery, after all - so using a whole load of cars to cover peak demand needn't use very much of the battery.

If everything goes electric, power generation needs to be scaled up massively. Nuke power really is the only solution unless every square mile of the country is to be filled with windmills, and we invest massively in battery storage.

Anyway, currently it's really just not practical to charge a car where I have to park it. Though not as bad as for those who park on street. Cables out of everyone's windows across pavements to cars? Not going to work. Okay, charge points installed by the council? Ha, yeah right. They won't provide enough, and then someone parks in front of your house nicking the charge point. Plus how is it billed and can they prevent people nicking your leccy, kids having a laugh and ripping out cables?

currently it's really just not practical to charge a car where I have to park it.

Yes.. *currently*.. we are talking about the future and what we need to do in it.

Not entirely sure you'd be able to sell that to consumers.

Fast change happens in minutes, not hours currently (although you do need a box of ticks and a 3phase supply) - we are also talking 10-20yrs in the future here so battery and charging tech will no doubt improve further by the time any ban of sale on traditional fuel cars.
Also I believe it's been talked about that you would either get paid for any energy taken out by the national grid, or be signed up to a discount service for any personal consumption as way of compensation (also see below next point)

If everything goes electric, power generation needs to be scaled up massively. Nuke power really is the only solution unless every square mile of the country is to be filled with windmills, and we invest massively in battery storage.

Not with the option previously discussed - the battery storage solution is already in your car... Trickle charge or fast charging would be smart controlled by your (intelligent) car so it would learn your habits and charge accordingly or sync with your calendar on your phone etc to be fully charged when needed.

However that said, personally, until batteries dont rely on heavy chemicals I won't be buying one. The strip mining in Canada and China is huge at the moment, with demand for electric vehicles going up its only going to get worse.

until batteries dont rely on heavy chemicals I won't be buying one

Or until mining practices improve?

The strip mining in Canada and China is huge at the moment

And oil production and burning is any better?

No- but a modern second hand car is still more environmentally friendly than any electric car from a show room just because of the environmental impact of the battery's.

fifeandy - Member
however if there were 20million electric vehicles and 50% were smart connected to the national grid this would be a solution.

Not entirely sure you'd be able to sell that to consumers.
*Arrives home on a Friday night and puts car on charge for trip to trail centre Saturday morning*
*Unfortunately, unknown to me its national cook a turkey dinner at 3am day*
*Wake up to find car only half charged because grid decided to use my car to cook Mrs Jones's turkey*
*Drives half charged car to showroom to exchange for a petrol powered version*

Or, to replace your last point for 2040,
*Drives half charged car to showroom, finds petrol powered version is no longer made*

No- but a modern second hand car is still more environmentally friendly than any electric car from a show room just because of the environmental impact of the battery's.

Indeed, but remember we are talking about 2040 here.

monkeyboyjc - Member
No- but a modern second hand car is still more environmentally friendly than any electric car from a show room just because of the environmental impact of the battery's.

Except for the 15,000+ people a year dying and the other illnesses caused by particulates and NOx emissions from road vehicles...

Problem is, we can't all just wait until 2040 and then suddenly we all buy electric. It's a long way off but that's to finally kill petrol & diesel (though I'm not sure if hybrids will still be allowed).

We need the infrastructure and massive improvements in battery technology and charging actually in place and financially viable and affordable long before that.

I still have a feeling that batteries and charging is a dead end due to charge time and range in particular, and no I don't think swapping batteries at a swap station is the answer either, nor is very fast charging which is more likely to result in very low life span of batteries and a lot more demand to dig up the resources needed to make more of them. Especially with lithium, which is a finite resource.

This has to be a short term solution with something better on the horizon, or we give up travel beyond short distances.

How do these batteries & indeed greener transport modes make there way to our island, & how many miles do they need to travel via that power source?

Battery's need to be made, mainly halfway around the world away, they still don't last the life* of the car, they need to be disposed of carefully.

*unless we only expect a car to last 5-10 years, in which case how much energy is used to make these new cars & will that save on pollution?

Some very interesting points - it'd be fun to re-read this thread in 23 years time!

The major stumbling block we need to overcome is generation. I heard on the radio (R4, so it must be true) that the average petrol station transfers a similar amount of calorific energy as a medium sized power station. Extrapolate for every fuel situation in the UK and it becomes clear that we will need more power. Much more power.

We really need to incentivise cycle use to reduce short car journeys. I can cycle son's nursery in not much less time than driving, but I'm not prepared to have him in the cycle carrier along half a mile of busy A road, so I drive. How many drivers are in a similar position nationwide? Scrap HS2 and plough the money into building decent segregated cycle paths and e-bike charging infrastructure.

nor is very fast charging which is more likely to result in very low life span of batteries

With today's tech, maybe. But this is the kind of thing that will improve. Toyota certainly seem to think so.

But I reckon flow batteries are the best solution.

Scrap HS2 and plough the money into building decent segregated cycle paths and e-bike charging infrastructure

No - build HS2 AND cycle infrastructure.

Seems like we will be scrapping trident (we can't afford it), so in the event of a general strike we'll be powering the country via the diesel-electric locos rather than by nuclear subs.

it is fine for there to be absolutely no interest in electrifying the rail network and all new trains to be electric.

It's not that there's no interest, it's that the costs of upgrading 150 year old mainline infrastructure is horrendous, because of awkward things like bridges, tunnels a couple of miles long, embankments getting on for half to three-quarters of a mile long, little inconveniences like those...
Some lovely old bridges from Brunel's time have been destroyed and replaced with shitty sheet steel structures bolted together and painted a vile bright green, to the fury of locals, especially as the new bridge parapets are structurally weaker than the substantial stone one it replaced, and the road closures are substantial; one close to me lasted eighteen months, that was one small bridge carrying a narrow lane, then there's a bridge at Royal Wootton Bassett that needed an entire new road built for the duration of the bridge reconstruction, otherwise the entire town would have been almost completely cut off from the west, unless a diversion of miles was used.
Box Tunnel was an engineering nightmare, because when they removed the Victorian track ballast, it was solid rock underneath and they had to drop the rail-bed nearly two meters, IIRC, in order to get the space above the trains for the wiring and pantographs.
If you believe the meeja, electrification of the GWR stops at Chippenham; this is clearly bollocks, because I can see a bunch of big grey steel posts along the top of the railway embankment at the bottom of my road, which is to the west of Chippenham station, and which would also have meant the huge amount spent on the bridge at Thingley, and Box Tunnel would have been redundant.
What's actually happening is it'll stop at Bath Spa for a time, before carrying on to Bristol, which is a relatively short distance.

No - build HS2 AND cycle infrastructure.

Let's suggest they alter the route of HS2 right through Mols house, then...
It's vanity project that will do nothing to 'fuel the Midlands powerhouse' or whatever hyperbollock bullshit they use to try to support it, better and newer rolling stock with more carriages and greater capacity would do far more to benefit commuters.
And cycle infrastructure won't benefit anyone needing to travel fifty to sixty miles for business or whatever, most ordinary folk won't ride more than maybe four or five miles to work, if that; [i]you[/i] might, but I don't know a single person who'd be happy to do more than ride into town, let alone five, six or seven miles from an outlying village or nearby town, none of which have roads that could easily accommodate a separate cycle path - some are on the Sustrans network, but very few, and even that involves a fair bit of 'quiet country road' use... yeah, right they're quiet.

Trident is tricky. We don't need it and can't afford it, but we do need it for jobs (even Corbyn admits this saying he'd keep it for the jobs but never use it 😆 ), and need it to keep hold of Scotland as they value it, for the jobs.

It's complex though. Trident we already have. The fuss is over a project to renew it with latest equipment, i.e. the submarines. It's actually not a project to create/replace nukes etc. We rent the nukes off the US, and require their assistance/permission to launch them, which we'd 99% likely never would and in the 1% case we would it would be too late or ineffectual.

Let's suggest they alter the route of HS2 right through Mols house, then...

Fine. They can pay me more than market value for it, I'll be laughing. HS2 might not be the right route, but we definitely need more rail infrastructure.

most ordinary folk won't ride more than maybe four or five miles to work, if that;

True, but that alone would get rid of a lot of traffic.

You're full of moan, CountZero - what would you suggest we do?

deadkenny - Member

Trident is tricky. We don't need it and can't afford it, but we do need it for jobs

No we don't, we could spend the same amount on something else and create a shitload more jobs. If we gave the same money to Rolls Royce to develop SMRs for power generation...

Create jobs in its place, but reskill the existing workforce?

Ideally yes, but more like they'll end up stacking shelves in B&Q.

As said above there's an issue making diesel locomotives Euro IIIb compliant within the UK railway loading gauge. Don't know about multiple units.

Canning electrification in the provinces but saying there's money to fund Crossrail 2 is a massive political betrayal IMHO.

Electrification misses an opportunity, they should go for double deck trains. If they are going to replace rolling stock, reconfigure track beds and rebuild bridges the the delta is worthl considering.

The major problem is the nr of tracks and platform lengths which limit the nr of trains and frequency of service. Improved performance of the rolling stock and signalling infrastructure adds capacity but more is needed.

We rent the nukes off the US, and require their assistance/permission to launch them

At the risk of derailing this even further, bollocks.

RR already have SMR's in development, not that they are much good for powering trains which this topic was supposed to be about.

Electrification misses an opportunity, they should go for double deck trains. If they are going to replace rolling stock, reconfigure track beds and rebuild bridges the the delta is worthl considering.

Re-digging tunnels for double decker would be far harder than lowering track beds for electric wires I reckon.

Increasing the gauging on Victorian railways would basically shut the network for 3 or 4 years.
What we do need to do is ensure that new infrastructure is built to European gauges so that rolling stick can be interchangeable, also the double container trains that they use in europe could help to take goods traffic off the roads.
Electrification works on the Bath (Chippenham to Bristol Temple Meads) line is deferred indefinitely - however a lot of the heavy civils works have been (or are being) completed. This will mean that when it does get restarted there'll be significantly less work required.

How about hydrogen fuel cell trains?
Alstom Coradia iLint

The challenge of enlarging the small nr of tunnels clearly depends on the geological conditions of each location and for some routes would be prohibitive

None of this is a single solution situation. Pressures will result in social change and technology change. I hope utility cycling can be part of the solution for many short journies. Add in electrical assist cargo bikes and this could be very useful in mid size towns and bigger. But it will require significant investment and a central push as people don't like the idea of loosing road space.

I like trains but I don't see a massive infrastructure push for rail. Maybe some local tram systems but we have had practically zero rail investment outside London for too long and are too far down the individual transport route. Multi modal could work well. Not just bike train but car train. I think this could be improved with just better management in many cases. In HK the octopus card (like the Oyster card) pays for trains, bus tolls and carparks. Little things like this helps make the entire process of swapping modes easier IMO.

The challenge of enlarging the small nr of tunnels clearly depends on the geological conditions of each location and for some routes would be prohibitive

It's not really the cost (although that is an issue) - its about the disruption to services whilst you're doing the works. That's part of the reason for building HS2 as the disruption to current rail users would be so enormous in order to upgrade the existing lines.
For these kinds of projects it makes it quicker and easier to deliver if built "off-line" ie adjacent to existing whilst not disrupting current operations rather than doing bits here and there to the existing.