Will rising oil prices mean faster electrification?

[Ameecher]

Freight prefers to be diesel because there are very few electric lines. If you could route electric trains from crewe via the WCML along to Cambridge and then either a change of loco there instead of at Ipswich or electrification of Stowmarket to Cambridge/Ely would allow the use of electric trains the whole way through to Ipswich and avoids the congested NLL. The issue there is capacity on the Bury St Edmunds to Cambridge section...

As for 350s being dual voltage. Currently they are not, they can have 3rd rail shoes fitted just like 450s have space for pantographs to fitted but currently do not, same applies to many of the 375/7s.

[JamieLei]

I'm still not too sure that freight would then prefer to be electric as some important destinations (ie Southampton) would still be out of reach. Also from when I was there at Ipswich, I didn't see a single electric loco (yes I know that they own mainly diesels). In the long run, it would be nice to have mostly electrified freight, but I appreciate that there are moments that it isn't possible (loading coal for instance).

The 350s are actually dual voltage (source), just like some of the 375/7s which are fitted with dual-voltage but not always used*. However, the shoes just don't get used. Also cause Wikipedia says so.

*Some 377s will move to Thameslink in future.

[Ameecher]

There are very rarely any electric locos on the stabling point, if any hang about for any period of time they wait in the old fish dock (adjacent to platform 1) or in the yard to the north of the station. Generally though, they come in with one train and almost immediately leave with another.

The 350s are actually dual voltage

My apologies, so they are. I know there are some members of the 377 class but the majority are NOT dual voltage, only the lot that are in the Watford Junction services pool and a few others.

As for the argument that Southampton isn't OH attached, that's not much of an issue, the rotation of locos on freight services is far easier than that on freight services so rostering a train to Southampton with a 66 wouldn't be that hard, just make sure it's got a diesel engine in it.

[JamieLei]

How easy is it that locos are rostered onto wagons? - I also heard that freight companies do journeys in legs with different locos (or was it different drivers?) - what normally happens at Ipswich?

Of course Southampton is 3rd rail and 92s could be used, but whether or not EWS like using their 92s I don't know... - plus most of it I imagine goes up via Reading and Oxford rather than the WCML.

30 375s and 15 377s have dual voltage (although this is only 26% and 8% respectively of the total number). The rest can be easily converted by adding a pantograph, and are hence numbered in the 3xx series normally reserved for 25kV AC stock.

[Ameecher]

How easy is it that locos are rostered onto wagons? - I also heard that freight companies do journeys in legs with different locos (or was it different drivers?) - what normally happens at Ipswich?

As the Felixstowe Branch is single track and not electrified there are 3 possible scenarios.
a) A diesel hauled train from the south runs straight onto the branch to the Docks or waits in the yard for a clear path
b) A diesel train from the north enters the yard at the north and either runs round or is detached as another loco is added to the front.
c) an electric train from the south enters the yard and detaches and either runs to the stabling point or is attached to a southbound train.

Of course Southampton is 3rd rail and 92s could be used, but whether or not EWS like using their 92s I don't know... - plus most of it I imagine goes up via Reading and Oxford rather than the WCML.

I suspect a 92 would successfully kill most of the South Western region power supply if there was more than one in the area with a loaded intermodal. A 92 visited Ipswich once and it had to be looped at Stratford because the Class 321 following didn't have enough power available to it to maintain time. Think what it'd be like on Third Rail! As it was they had to jack the power up when electrostars and desiros were introduced.

30 375s and 15 377s have dual voltage (although this is only 26% and 8% respectively of the total number). The rest can be easily converted by adding a pantograph, and are hence numbered in the 3xx series normally reserved for 25kV AC stock.

I wasn't aware of the actual numbers but was aware that some were fitted with Pantos

[trainmaster611]

I know you all are talking about Britain but I feel so jealous. We Americans can't get trains at all let alone electric trains. If you try to start a diesel commuter line, people complain about the vehicle actually using more energy per mile than an automobile (that is of course true per vehicle but not per person). If you try to start an electric line, people go insane about the initial cost. For you all, train service isn't a problem, its just how you power the train that matters

The public transportation and railroad movement in the United States has gotten almost nowhere. But slowly and surely, we are succeeding in opening more and more train lines. We're on the offensive now, but its a very slow offensive.

But I do think electric trains are the best answer not just for Britain but for America too. Obviously because they remove us from an addiction to oil that can be equated to a druggy on crack and instead allow us to rely on renewable resources that can be domestically produced (without any emissions). Just changing the fuel in a car just changes your poison. Granted it can be produced domestically, but nevertheless, the prices of that fuel will skyrocket once the entire economy becomes dependent on it. And we all know of course that these fuels require more energy to produce than they will create (leaving you with a net loss of energy). And I'm sure everyone is aware of the effects that the minimal implementation of ethanol fuel into the common market is having on food prices. Clearly, having the entire economy dependent on that isn't feasible.

[JamieLei]

I don't think ethanol fuels produce a net loss of energy but it certainly is true that they require much fuel to make, resulting in only a small net gain of energy (as far as I know - there's A LOT of ethanol bashing atm due to soaring fuel prices)

If there's one thing that will get Americans on trains, it will be soaring oil prices. If petrol prices were as high as in the UK (about 3-4x the cost here if I'm not mistaken), then more (less well-off people especially) would take public transport.

Secondly, the US needs to scrap the absolutely stupid law which states that lightweight efficient European trains are banned. Those locos + Bombardier bi-level cars must take up a huge amount of fuel - we should consider exporting some 172s to them as a donation. Then running a clockface timetable would actually be viable. Most lines contain a few trains in the morning into the city, and then a few trains in the evening out. The idea of leisure commuting on suburban rail is nonexistant...

[trainmaster611]

Well ethanol does in fact produce a net energy loss, as does hydrogen.

Its going to be a while before we can get Americans on trains. The price of fuel here is now around $3.79 (which is £1.94) per gallon. You should see how insane people over here are going about the price of gas. They think it is so expensive. In the UK, its somewhere closer to $5.55 (which is £2.84).

The thing is that in Europe, the majority of the price is made up of taxes -- its an incentive to get people out of their cars and use public transportation. If you try to raise the price of gas over here as an incentive, people start complaining that they like their freedom of mobility and that they don't want to become dependent on a system developed in socialist countries (ie European countries). Basically, Americans like their cars too much and depend on them too much that they throw a fit whenever gas goes up 5 cents.

I've never heard that European trains are banned In Oceanside, California, they've just started a new commuter train service using Desiro DMUs. In Orlando (where I live) they're starting a new commuter line using Colorado Railcar DMUs. They look really weird but they're extremely fuel efficient and have good performance, they even match up to some of the European trains. But I agree with the fact that they should stop using so many heavy-duty commuter trains especially considering the way American cities are developed. The should be using more trains like the Desiro and the Class 172s for the reasons you mentioned.

[orudge]

Its going to be a while before we can get Americans on trains. The price of fuel here is now around $3.79 (which is £1.94) per gallon. You should see how insane people over here are going about the price of gas. They think it is so expensive. In the UK, its somewhere closer to $5.55 (which is £2.84).

$5.55 per gallon? I wish. Diesel here (St Andrews) is currently $9.08 per US gallon, with petrol at around $8.26 per US gallon. A large chunk of that is, as you say, tax, though.

[JamieLei]

I think it's an outrage that airlines currently get tax-free jet fuel, whereas trains and buses have to pay full tax on petrol - it should be the other way round if the government wants to cut carbon emissions! However we're bound by an international agreement - and the Americans won't let it pass: they do love their domestic flights...

[orudge]

I think it's an outrage that airlines currently get tax-free jet fuel, whereas trains and buses have to pay full tax on petrol - it should be the other way round if the government wants to cut carbon emissions! However we're bound by an international agreement - and the Americans won't let it pass: they do love their domestic flights...

To be fair, in America, they have much vaster distances to cover, and air travel is the only practical way of covering those distances, short of them covering the continent in maglev tracks... which might be nice, but it's not going to happen any time soon.

[Ameecher]

I think it's an outrage that airlines currently get tax-free jet fuel, whereas trains and buses have to pay full tax on petrol - it should be the other way round if the government wants to cut carbon emissions! However we're bound by an international agreement - and the Americans won't let it pass: they do love their domestic flights...

To be fair, in America, they have much vaster distances to cover, and air travel is the only practical way of covering those distances, short of them covering the continent in maglev tracks... which might be nice, but it's not going to happen any time soon.

My thoughts exactly. You can't compare the UK where the MAIN intercity routes are up to 600 miles in length (work out how long Dundee to Plymouth is if you wish) to a transcontinental flight from New York to Los Angeles.

[EXTspotter]

Taxing fuel on aircraft wouldn't help anyone. The charge will just get passed onto the consumer. Aviation works on a load of different rules to other transport systems, through the huge costs involved. For instance, recently BA announced that they will probably make a poor profit this year because the £1bn in profit last financial year will be totally wiped out as a £1bn in increased cost of fuel this year.

Aviation is a large contributor to CO2 emmissions, however, it only counts for around 2%, whereas electricity generation and personal transport (cars) contribute a much higher percentage. Unlike our energy usage, cutting the number of flights you take is not a simple thing to do. If you were a business man who had to travel between London and Hong Kong 2 or 3 times a month, flying is the only viable method. Even travelling between two places which are quite close, flying is the only reasonable method, especially on non-London originating travel. Between Newquay and Paris, flying would take 6 or 7 hours town centre to city centre, with generous times for checkin and for transfers at the other end. Going by car and ferry would take much longer and through using the car, carrying 2 people in a car for up to 5 people, vs. 50 people in a turboprop airliner for up to 75, would be about the same or possibly worse PPPM. Taking the train would be a more reasonable alternative, however would take much longer and if it is bought very close to the date of travel, could be more expensive than flying. Even donating the cost of taking the extra CO2 out of the atmosphere into the equation, could still possibly be cheaper.

There is no one rule for everything, it all depends on geography and the other options available.

[michael blunck]

Taxing fuel on aircraft wouldn't help anyone. The charge will just get passed onto the consumer. [...]

Economically spoken, high taxes generally have a drawback for the producers: by missing further profits, their preparedness to expand production, in this case e.g. by tapping newly found deposits of crude oil, is dropping. I.e., without high taxes on petrol, Canadian tar sands would be completely tapped by now, Antarctica would be covered with derricks, and a considerable part of the world´s agricultural area would be (mis-)used for production of ethanol. Which would be counter-productive, both to avoid emission of CO2, and with regards to human nourishment.

regards
Michael

[JamieLei]

if it is bought very close to the date of travel, could be more expensive than flying. Even donating the cost of taking the extra CO2 out of the atmosphere into the equation, could still possibly be cheaper.

Please try to be reasonable when comparing prices. I don't turn up at Birmingham Airport on the day and expect to be able to fly to Edinburgh for a plane leaving in 1hr at the same price as if I booked 6 weeks ahead. Same for trains.

Aviation is a large contributor to CO2 emmissions, however, it only counts for around 2%

Actually nearly 10% for the UK. Ryanair got done by the Advertising Standards Agency for claiming exactly what you just said
Of course it still is 2% for the world, but then we have Americans doing Sunday drives for fun, and China building power stations every week. At least they're trying - they're building Metro systems at an extrodinary rate - the 6 new lines will open on the Beijing metro the week before the Olympics start. It takes them 3 years to build them. It's taken us since '91 to plan Crossrail and we've only just started building...

without high taxes on petrol, Canadian tar sands would be completely tapped by now, Antarctica would be covered with derricks, and a considerable part of the world´s agricultural area would be (mis-)used for production of ethanol. Which would be counter-productive, both to avoid emission of CO2, and with regards to human nourishment.

I completely agree. We must use the current resources we have in the most optimal way possible, which means a shift to public transport, even if it involves sacrificing a little time on our private behalf.

[EXTspotter]

The plane tickets are not necessarily as much of an increase in price compared to trains as a difference between advance and same day, also being cheaper overall.

Comparing 2 journeys, between Exeter and Manchester Airport, Tommorrow costs £102 all in, including taxes, the same flight in a month costs £56 total.

On the train, advance between St. Davids and Manchester airport costs £25, tommorrow will cost more than £100. Last summer (august bank holiday saturday) between Manchester Airport and Newton Abbot, it cost £670 same day for 5 of us, which works out to be around £135 each.

This is just one case. Of course sometimes one will be more expensive and sometimes when the other will be.

Also unlike the majority of the transport network, a large percentage of the total passengers are neither travelling to or from a domestic destination. For the 68m people who went through Heathrow last year, more than 15m people were (foolishly) transferring through the airport. Another reason why the government would not be happy with putting tax on kerosene, because flying into the UK would become more expensive and make the country less attractive to tourists and people transferring through UK airports (the fees that BAA (over-)charges are on a per passenger basis). Connecting passengers are good for BAA, because they are more likely to spend money in the terminal as they often have to spend much longer than an O+D passenger in the airport, plus they bring in twice the amount of money as an O+D passenger (through physically going through the system twice, rather than once) whilst not costing as much in security (as they are often pre-cleared) and not costing money through other services. However, to the UK economy in general, tourists are better as they spend more in total, as they use goods and services in this country.

I also agree that crossrail is important and that planning rules should be relaxed for these kinds of transportation related projects, as even though they inconvienience some people, they are for the greater good. I do sympathise with the NIMBYs who live in the village next to Heathrow, for instance and believe that they should be compensated with more than the value of their houses, etc, however, I do not agree that other NIMBYs and BANANAs should hold up these projects any more. Surely they must have moved into the area AFTER the airport, therefore, it could be seen as a forgone conclusion that their areas are more likely to be needed if the airport or whatever is to be expanded in the same way that their property is more likely to be damaged if there is an accident.

[JamieLei]

however, I do not agree that other NIMBYs and BANANAs should hold up these projects any more.

Lol - never heard BANANA before - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone!

I saw an interview with a couple of Scottish women who were concerned about some high voltage power lines being erected near their house and the associated health risks. When the presenter asked "What should the power company do instead? Build them over council estates instead?", the women hesitated and then argued defiantly "no!", showing that they were all for that idea as long as it didn't run through their own back yard, hence the essence of NIMBYism.

I do agree that BAA overcharge and that I fully support Gatwick being sold off to a private company. The difference in cost in flying from Birmingham to Dubai than from Glasgow/Heathrow/Gatwick is noticeable due to the airport tax, and as a result, Birmingham Airport is rapidly becoming an international hub.

However I still stand by my view that if a journey can be made in 4 hours or less by train, the associated flight should not be able to run. 4 hours is about the cut off point where city centre-city centre journeys become faster by plane than train. With increased airport links (ARUP have just proposed a Heathrow Hub station on the GWML), connecting flights would be just as competitive as the train.

[orudge]

For the 68m people who went through Heathrow last year, more than 15m people were (foolishly) transferring through the airport.

Foolishly? Why? I was one of those 68 million people who transferred through Heathrow last year - I got a flight from Edinburgh to Heathrow, then Heathrow to Toronto (then Boston to Heathrow to Edinburgh return). BA's original flight suggestion was for me to go Edinburgh to Gatwick, then transfer across London to Heathrow, but I think that would have been more foolish! The alternative would have been to get a train all the way down to Heathrow. Oddly enough, getting to Edinburgh Airport from St Andrews was a lot quicker and easier. Don't see how it's foolish at all.

[paullb]

However I still stand by my view that if a journey can be made in 4 hours or less by train, the associated flight should not be able to run. 4 hours is about the cut off point where city centre-city centre journeys become faster by plane than train. With increased airport links (ARUP have just proposed a Heathrow Hub station on the GWML), connecting flights would be just as competitive as the train.

Absolutely!

Richard Beranson is also on record for having said his (and he operates an airline company, though not short-haul).

[JamieLei]

Absolutely!

Richard Beranson is also on record for having said his (and he operates an airline company, though not short-haul).

I'd personally love to do away with all the Paris and Brussles shuttles. Yes I do realise that they're connecting flights but for many, their journey does start in London, and end in Paris/Brussles. This would free up runway space for more long-haul flights, therefore not requiring a third runway.