N Gauge Forum

General Category => Real Railway Discussion => Topic started by: kurita on December 07, 2018, 08:26:38 AM

Title: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: kurita on December 07, 2018, 08:26:38 AM
Hello,

New member here with a fairly deep knowledge of japanese prototypes and a large collection of japanese n scale. live in britain but only a passing familiarity with actual british trains.

this may be a silly question, but i took a train from manchester oxford road (city centre, manchester) to liverpool (essentially city centre) yesterday - two major urban centres with essentially suburban and commuter stations inbetween and fairly decent ridership. At the midway the large urbanization of warrington is passed and the train had good ridership.  can somebody explain to my why it is i took an environmentally ruinous diesel train between the two?  or is there no real logically justifiable answer other than the broadly shambolic state of pre and post privatisation britain?   

In case there is any doubt, my question is not meant to be provocative. I am honestly curious about this and as you can tell i'm a bit shocked to hear that diesels (DMU) are being operated on such routes - i'll refrain from further superlatives other than this strikes me as grossly inappropriate for 2018.


Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: Bealman on December 07, 2018, 08:45:26 AM
Hi kurita, and welcome to the NGF!  :thumbsup:

Interesting intro...

Someone will be along soon!
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: crewearpley40 on December 07, 2018, 09:33:12 AM
if you read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool%E2%80%93Manchester_lines


you took the southern route, through warrington   although electrification may or may not happen, and its mainly an old infrastructure, funding thats stopping faster services
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: Steven B on December 07, 2018, 09:45:08 AM
The direct Manchester to Liverpool has been electrified since March 2015 and so electric trains do run between the two cities.

The train is likely to have been a service that runs for part of its route over non-electrified lines; What's better for these passengers - making them swap trains half-way along their journey or running diesel under the wires?

Some of our newer trains are bi-modal allowing them to be powered by electricity when it's available but with diesel engines to keep them moving once the wires run out.

Our "shambolic" railways might not run as well as those in Japan, but they're still the busiest in Europe and handles significantly more freight (10% of all freight in UK, compared to 1% in Japan).
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: MJKERR on December 07, 2018, 10:04:20 AM
Manchester to Liverpool

Sadly you have taken the localised urban service, run by Northern Rail
Typical journey time one hour and 10 minutes, with 13 calling points

You really should have taken the inter-urban or express service, run by TPE
Typical journey time 40 minutes, with one calling point

Running DMU on such services is not unusual
Central Scotland (SPT area) is very similar and is only now also converting these to electrified
The final phases will be those routes which are primarily localised urban services
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: crewearpley40 on December 07, 2018, 10:07:48 AM
common mistake. i would have taken the route via newton le willows, direct and quicker but as have family / meetings in warrington and liverpool i only travel that route. its un nerving if you are unsure. but agree with the above comments
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: kurita on December 07, 2018, 11:46:31 AM
Manchester to Liverpool

I was going from manchester airport to mossley hill and this was the fastest and most logical all train connection available.  Thanks for the second guessing though.   :-\

as it were, yes, i do think that people on infrequently used rural services should, as a general principle, be forced to change trains.  diesel rail is incredibly polluting, especially in relatively enclosed urban areas/stations and there is no reason for the many to suffer pollution for the benefit of the few and tolerating such outdated technologies discourages innovation and improvement.  that also said, i find the idea that this line was only fully electrified in 2015 or whatever to be, well, difficult to contemplate.  as a rail fan, i have a warm place in my heart for DMUs, but for city-to-city travel to busy routes it is stunning to contemplate that they long haven't been relegated to the dustbin of history.  There must be some, but off the top of my head I can't think of a single other close city pair like this outside of the UK that still uses diesels regularly for such short fixed urban routes (33 miles or so, end to end).  The defensive comments to my question notwithstanding, my evaluation of "shambles" seems not to be far off.

This:

https://www.railway-technology.com/features/featurethe-big-stink-how-much-do-trains-really-emit-4807131/ (https://www.railway-technology.com/features/featurethe-big-stink-how-much-do-trains-really-emit-4807131/)

gives some idea of the pollution effects of diesel.   and mind you this service started at manchester oxford road and terminated in liverpool lime street - no rural stations involved.  my sympathies go out to the commuters and train crew who have to breathe diesel poision every day because of, what in the absence of a decent explanation otherwise, i'll cough up to poor planning and management. 
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: RailGooner on December 07, 2018, 11:54:19 AM
Hi @kurita (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=7213)  and welcome aboard! :wave:

The answer to why UK railways aren't greener, is rooted in a (World) war (II) that bankrupted us, followed by decades of repaying loans we'd taken out to fund the war. To go into greater detail would draw us into discussing (the forbidden) politics.
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: red_death on December 07, 2018, 12:09:12 PM
The link from the Railway Tech website is really about enclosed stations which are not the same as emissions in open air at all!  It is important to make a fair comparison as well - generally diesel trains (and buses) are less polluting per passenger when reasonably fully loaded than say a car. Of course electric trains also generate emissions, just at the power station (until we have much greater renewables (or nuclear - looking unlikely as we're struggling to replace existing plants)) rather than on the train.

As to why the route through Warrington is not electrified - lack of investment and/or planning. Simple as that really.
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: NGS-PO on December 07, 2018, 12:20:58 PM
Hi @kurita (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=7213)  and welcome aboard! :wave:

The answer to why UK railways aren't greener, is rooted in a (World) war (II) that bankrupted us, followed by decades of repaying loans we'd taken out to fund the war. To go into greater detail would draw us into discussing (the forbidden) politics.

Allied to that (pun not intended), I would suggest that unlike many european countries and, relevantly for the OP, Japan, UK railways were not as a rule too adversely affected by combat during the war, and hence they weren't seen as the highest priority for rebuilding. If we had been building a railway from scratch again, in 1946, (and of course we hadn't been bankrupted by 6 years of combat) perhaps the whole network would be electrified by now.

I think, on the whole, and under the circumstances, our railway is pretty good. Could it be better? sure. But I wouldn't say it's a shambles. I'd say it's a victim of circumstances.

Best

Scott
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: njee20 on December 07, 2018, 02:19:57 PM
If that's you not being provocative I'd love to see your provocative posting!  ::)

I think Mike's answer covers it best, there's no specific reason, it's not a conspiracy, it's nothing to do with the shambolic state of the railways, and purely a function of not having spent millions on pounds upgrading Victorian infrastructure for a marginal benefit. Surely you could say the same of any route utilised by diesel trains anywhere on the planet? I guarantee there are plenty with higher ridership figures than the secondary route between Manchester and Liverpool!
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: javlinfaw7 on December 07, 2018, 03:30:20 PM
Nuclear power stations are not pollution free either and  produce pollution of a type that is an immediate threat ,look at Chernobyl ,Fukushima Daiichi  ,Three Mile Island or the clean up of any power station after a relatively  short lifespan. .
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: njee20 on December 07, 2018, 03:32:08 PM
That's a bit unfair. That's like saying "wind turbines let off terrible pollution when they explode"!
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: javlinfaw7 on December 07, 2018, 03:45:31 PM
Wind turbines do not require to be buried underground encased in concrete for a indeterminate number of years ,and while the nuclear industry has a relatively good safety record the waste is particularly toxic and difficult to dispose of.
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: red_death on December 07, 2018, 04:11:07 PM
Sure nuclear plants have issues but accidents are not normal occurrences. A while ago (while studying for an environmental science degree) I did a study on the indirect CO2 emissions from a nuclear plant (trying to cover as much as possible from construction, mining of ore, fuel processing to decommissioning and long term storage ie use of concrete and CO2 from construction/transport etc) to see how a nuclear plant compares with say gas or coal. Part of the problem is that we don't have sufficient information for the long term impacts but even with very conservative estimates nuclear comes out considerably more favourable than coal (as you would expect) and compared reasonably well with modern CCGT gas plants.

Even renewables have climate change impacts during construction or mining eg you need a fair chunk of concrete and steel for a wind turbine - I can't remember the pay off periods but I'm sure they would be easy to find online.

Nothing comes for free - thermodynamics innit!
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: themadhippy on December 07, 2018, 04:16:45 PM
I read a report some time back that reckoned electrifying  a line in scotland  would produce more pollution,taking into account the manufacturing and transportation of all the bits needed ,along with the construction vehicles etc, than running a "clean" diesel on the existing line.
As for the neuclear/renwables debate,in 25 years time solar and wind plant can be removed leaving the land almost the same as the day it was installed,were as a nuclear plant will still be an environmental hazard for many 100's of years into the future
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: njee20 on December 07, 2018, 05:09:18 PM
Wind turbines do not require to be buried underground encased in concrete for a indeterminate number of years ,and while the nuclear industry has a relatively good safety record the waste is particularly toxic and difficult to dispose of.

You totally missed my point. You cite (basically every major) incidents as examples of how polluting nuclear is. You wouldn't use the Exxon Valdez as an example of how ships are polluting...! Nuclear waste is hard to dispose of and very unpleasant yes, but that's not what you said.

As Mike says (and clearly he's far more knowledgeable than me) there's a pollution aspect to anything, there's clearly no panacea.
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: exmouthcraig on December 07, 2018, 07:50:22 PM
Well if someone with knowledge of a less 'shambolic' state of our railways only complaint is that we're using diesel it can't be as bad as all the commuters and statistics state.

It's hard to comment without it becoming political, our railways require investment BUT if we ever take a train journey i don't get annoyed with the fuel of the power car, I want it to be on time and cheap.

Sure we'd love ultra clean environmental trains BUT where does the £999999billion of investment to supply that come from, let alone the time to replace it all without annoying the poor people paying for the current upgrades???
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: jpendle on December 09, 2018, 02:33:05 PM
Hello,

In case there is any doubt, my question is not meant to be provocative. I am honestly curious about this and as you can tell i'm a bit shocked to hear that diesels (DMU) are being operated on such routes - i'll refrain from further superlatives other than this strikes me as grossly inappropriate for 2018.

In case there is any doubt, you are being provocative, so please stop.

In your other post, referring to Farish as a 'secondary' manufacturer doesn't help either.

Welcome to the Forum

John P
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: railsquid on December 10, 2018, 06:17:15 AM
Hi @kurita (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=7213)  and welcome aboard! :wave:

The answer to why UK railways aren't greener, is rooted in a (World) war (II) that bankrupted us, followed by decades of repaying loans we'd taken out to fund the war. To go into greater detail would draw us into discussing (the forbidden) politics.

Allied to that (pun not intended), I would suggest that unlike many european countries and, relevantly for the OP, Japan, UK railways were not as a rule too adversely affected by combat during the war, and hence they weren't seen as the highest priority for rebuilding. If we had been building a railway from scratch again, in 1946, (and of course we hadn't been bankrupted by 6 years of combat) perhaps the whole network would be electrified by now.


Umm, the Japanese railway network was not exactly rebuilt from scratch post-war; while it received some damage particularly in urban areas during the last few month when Japan was within range of US bombers, it would have been reasonably intact, my impression is the main problem was lack of rolling stock.

What Japan did have is a national network which was developed in large parts by the state (i.e. not fragmented between different competing companies), and nationalized by the 1920s, and electrification (1500V DC) of the national network was an early priority, which was continued after the war, meaning Japan went more-or-less straight from steam to electric, with diesel traffic limited to less heavily trafficed routes. The privately-owned suburban lines which mainly came into being in from 1920s were electrified from the start. While the national network is now "privatized", that was done by splitting it up into regional companies, which are fully vertically integrated, i.e. they own track, trains and stations, no "Network Rail" or rolling stock leasing companies or whatever.
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: acko22 on December 21, 2018, 03:40:11 AM
Hi All,

 I agree @kurita (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=7213)  probably used the route via Warrington Central, which is served by diesels, but one point that I think he is sorely missing is how many people can you fit on that train? I live not far from the M602 / M62 which is one of the main routes between Manchester / Warrington and Liverpool and I can tell you now the amount of traffic at all times is horrific.
So when you look at it  a rush hour train could have 150 people on board and that could be taking 100+ cars off the road so while its not as environmentally perfect its a hell of a lot cleaner than making people drive.
There was a study done by the University of Manchester in 2015 that found that when you compare the polluting gases between car travel (Toyota Prius) and rail travel (routes in the northwest) the study found that despite the trains in question (most likely class 142, 150, 156) been older less green trains the pollution per passenger per journey was only 24% of the pollution put out by the car!
It even went into the manufacture cars and trains and after all the sums they worked out that the total carbon footprint  per journey (total carbon includes the pollution made from things like manufacturing and legacy pollutants) it came out per journey that the train only put out 8% of the pollution that a car does on the same journey!

Amazingly the figure for freight trains are even greener! Worked per ton freight transported by rail only emits 4% of the green house gases that road freight does on average per mile.

So while the OP thinks these trains aren't green its proven that despite their age trains are a hell of a lot greener using the Manchester University study even on the higher figure for the same amount of pollutants the train can take you 4 times further than a greener car (Prius). And with newer diesel trains to appear soon (Maybe, hopefully, depends when Northern can be bothered) this figure will only swing more in the favour of rail transport!
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: kurita on December 21, 2018, 10:18:08 AM
Hi All,


there's little doubt that taken as a whole, that trains, especially full trains, are substantially greener than cars.

but im not quite sure its on to use this as justification for why a major, busy line between two urban areas is still using diesels any more than the existence of even fatter people excuses not exercising.  especially as, even ignoring issues of pollution, a little back of the envelope calculation shows that electrification probably could have paid for itself multiply times by now.
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: stevewalker on December 21, 2018, 12:25:53 PM
One of the reasons is the cost and disruption to upgrade the line. The line passes through many urban and suburban areas, with numerous bridges. The majority of these bridges are too low to retrofit and would require replacement, along with major roadworks to cater for the increased road height - especially problematic where the road has a junction very close to the bridge. The disruption to road and rail traffic would be immense.

As for the relative greenness of rail vs road, that has to be weighed up against practicality and cost.

I could go to work by train, but my 16 to 20 minute journey each way would become a minimum of 90 minutes each way including getting to the station from home, the train journey itself, then either a walk that is too far for my arthritic knees or a bus that doesn't run frequently enough. Even worse, on the days that I start early, the bus starts running 45 minutes AFTER I've started work. My start time varies (I have IBS and can easily be delayed in the mornings), as does my finishing time (depending upon when is a good time to break off the current task) and so I could end up 5 minutes too late and having to wait 55 minutes for the next train in either case.

By train, I can't divert to pick up items that my wife has decided we need that day either.

That all means that my already limited family/free time would be eroded even further by having to set out much earlier and return much later.

I have to have a car for various reasons, including working away at times and if I am not using it, I am still suffering depreciation, interest, insurance, tax, servicing, etc. on top of having to pay for public transport. It makes no financial sense to have a car and then to not use it for most journeys.

Finally, both as a student and more recently when I worked in a different location, the train made sense due to working near the station, busy roads and parking costs, but I still ended up using the car mostly, because the reliability and overcrowding was appalling. If our train was running late, it would simply miss out our station to avoid delaying the expresses. Even if it was stopping, it was common that the train at the time I wanted to leave work wasn't scheduled for our station and I'd have to wait for one that was or use both train and bus.
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: njee20 on December 21, 2018, 03:42:50 PM
Many, many projects could be proven to be cost effective when considered in isolation. But thatís irrelevant unless thereís a limitless pot to dip into.

You seem not to listen to common sense or the actual reasons, so Iím unsure why you returned?
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: acko22 on December 21, 2018, 07:27:13 PM
Hi All,


there's little doubt that taken as a whole, that trains, especially full trains, are substantially greener than cars.

but im not quite sure its on to use this as justification for why a major, busy line between two urban areas is still using diesels

Simple, because until it becomes cost effective, and environmentally viable to convert routes to electric what it the actual point? It's like performing full surgery on a cut finger when a plaster will do!
The route you are on about between Old Trafford (Trafford Park Container Terminal) and Warrington, has 9 rail over road bridges, 20 over rail bridges and the bridge over Manchester Sip Canal, none of which were ever designed for Overhead wiring so many would need alteration which as is proving else where a time consuming and costly exercise.
It would reduce pollution a bit yes, would it save travel times on that route realistically maybe a min here or there but none of this makes it a worthwhile exercise and actually causes more harm than good!

So you argument is more down to you want / think they should have, but the reality there is no feasible benefits that justify the cost, effort or disruption. No doubt should things swing the other way and the benefits outweigh the costs, effort and disruption it will happen when the funds are there.
But been frank I don't see that happening for a long time.
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: kurita on December 22, 2018, 06:45:20 AM
Many, many projects could be proven to be cost effective when considered in isolation. But thatís irrelevant unless thereís a limitless pot to dip into.

You seem not to listen to common sense or the actual reasons, so Iím unsure why you returned?

wow, how very aggressive.  happy christmas to you and your family, too.

i have read the 'actual reasons.'  They amount to not much more than defensive rationalizations of extremely short term thinking.

the only semi-decent argument provided was the engineering case that there might be an issue with the height of some bridges.    but we're not talking about a one year issue or a 5 year issue.  we're talking about a 70+ year issue and a project that essentially pays for itself over time.  i believe your 'pot of money' argument falls spectacularly flat - rail systems can easily obtain long term financing for such projects that, again, largely if not entirely pay for themselves.

i think some of you have lost sight of the big picture of just how backwards and pathetic it is in 2018 for a major national rail system in a compact, first-world, geographically flat, population-dense regions to still be running diesels on a regular, popular urban commuter service.     Sure, there might be reasons why 70+ years ago the systems were originally set up like this - but that's a lifetime ago and in the meanwhile all other countries with financially viable have found the way to electrify.  Instead of acting offended and essentially telling me to 'go away' because i dont buy the ill considered excuses for this inaction, i had hoped the experienced commentators here would be able to provide a more informed view of this specific line.

At least on paper, network rail does seem to have a general notion that electrification is a good thing and they seem to have a plan to roll this out.  Hopefully the line in questions is on the list.
 
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: exmouthcraig on December 22, 2018, 07:26:58 AM
The simple fact is OUR country is skint! Pathetic excuses if you want to view it that way but quite honestly 65million people would rather see our ailing NHS, police force, Fire service, MOD and education sectors receiving the hundreds of billions of pounds that 1 person can't accept we don't have or can be bothered to squander on quite honestly a pointless exercise.

HS2 is to be built (apparently) i suggested to someone working on seat development programme for the suggested trains running on the line

We give Lafarge Tarmac the estimated £200bn and tell them to put 1 lane on every motorway and 9" of tarmac on every single road in the UK. Everyone benefits from that plan.

Do you spend every penny you earn every month?? Do you have to budget to see where best to spend your presumably hard earned wages?? Do you do everything in your power to make your life as green as possible no matter what the cost??

It's the same for the government just on a bigger scale.

Spend the least amount of money to benefit the biggest amount of people. Your precious secondary line obviously doesn't fit into that scale.

So there's 2 options, accept that fact or if it's so important submit a tender to run Kurita Rail on that line, borrow all the money to pay network rail to electrify and rebuild the whole line and infrastructure and hope you live 350years to pay it back.

Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: kurita on December 22, 2018, 08:33:15 AM
The simple fact is OUR country is skint! Pathetic excuses if you want to view it that way but quite honestly 65million people would rather see our ailing NHS, police force, Fire service, MOD and education sectors receiving the hundreds of billions of pounds that 1 person can't accept we don't have or can be bothered to squander on quite honestly a pointless exercise.

Sigh.  I didn't realize that I wandered into the Daily Mail academy of higher economics chaired by bitter old men with onions tied to their belts yelling at clouds.

So, let's take everything you say as true. Let's pretend for a moment that your oversimplified, catastrophising, economically illiterate, navel-gazing, view of the world is true.  Therefore, are we to conclude that the current electrification being undertaken by network rail is pointless and wrong?  Is that what you are trying to say?

The UK may be 'skint' now (it isn't, but let's go with it), but it certainly wasnt during most of the 2000s when the pound was soaring, interest rates were low, and yet the price of petro energy was soaring and both foreign and domestic finance were in sharp competition for such fixed-income-stream projects. as such, there may indeed be a very good engineering, priority, or other reason why this particular project was not undertaken then... or it might just be incompetence.  i dont know, which is why i out of genuine curiousity asked the question.  but the cumulative reality that this project has not been undertaken in 70 or so years since the end of the 2nd world war is nothing less than utterly pathetic, whatever the reasons.  its a travesty.

im done here.   please by all means don't let me interrupt the self-congratulatory jobsworthy 'common sense' of the experts here.  maybe if i come back some day you can all tell me how due to the kaiser the escalators dont work or due to the second carnatic war buying a ticket from point a to point b can still consists of a conversation at a ticket kiosk where a person tells you that if they split the ticket into a to c and then c to b you can get the same train seat for cheaper.
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: njee20 on December 22, 2018, 08:46:24 AM
Sorry if you feel Iím being aggressive, but youíve posted two threads where youíve adopted a very inflammatory tone. You clearly have your opinion which you hold in extremely high regard, repeatedly saying things like ďitís pathetic...Ē.

Youíve been given a number of good reasons why weíve not electrified this single route youíve cherry picked as being in dire need of it. Principally:

- it would be expensive and difficult given the limited benefit
- we donít have the money
- itís not a top priority

Clearly this isnít enough for you, so Iím genuinely not sure what youíre seeking to achieve?

The reasons may be defensive rationalisations and short term thinking, but I donít believe we have the transport secretary in our midst, so the plans are unlikely to change.

In an ideal world weíd have electrified the entire country, but weíve not, the reasons for that are as above.

Edit: cross posted, bye! Donít let the door hit you on the way out.
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: acko22 on December 22, 2018, 09:22:06 AM
I will concede we do need to be concerned about pollution, in not only the long term but short term.

But now its time to take the rose tinted glasses off! As @exmouthcraig (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=5099) points out as a country we are skint hence how many billions are we in debt? How do I know this in real terms well my military pension has gone to dog :poop: because we are skint! (In real terms more than halved)

If you can tell us what the realistic benefits and I mean provable and viable benefits of what is in reality of waste the cost (estimated at £200 - £240 million so about £6.6 - £8 million per mile), its a secondary route where 50% of the train that travel over it have to be diesel because beyond the northwest they travel on further routes that are not electrified those been the Pennines around £2.9 Billion to upgrade and electrify - East Anglia £1.3 Billion to electrify. The Pennines even by admission of all groups is  the most important upgrades required in England outside of London and we cant afford to do that right now!

Plus you are missing one huge white elephant, 46% of UK electric comes from Fossil fuel power plants and another 7% from Biomass both of which are still polluting, so all you are doing is moving the issue from a train to a power plant (if the line was electrified tomorrow, most likely source would be Fiddlers Ferry Power Plant the last remaining coal power plant in the Northwest and only 4 miles from the line).

So instead of wasting all that money on a today's technology rose tinted solution, which in reality is just moving the issue elsewhere. Why not look at other alternatives a great example been what Alstom have on practical tests in Germany, 3 Hydrogen powered trains which have one waste product water and a cost of around £1.85 million per car or £5.55 million per train plus with a range of around 750 miles. (about 18 return journey from Manchester - Liverpool via Warrington Central)
Which has not proven itself practically yet but is well on its way in Germany on similar route to the route you are on about local services, but to say they are not yet proven they have done enough for the local government to put an order of 14 more in!

So if we use the higher £240 million estimate instead of wasting it on what you want we could instead get:

1) 30 Green hydrogen powered trains
2) The required infrastructure to support them (new type fuelling points at all depots they operate from)
3)Upgrade the freight only route through Middlewich and rebuild the station to allow the largest town in the North West with out a station to be rail served to support the growing population (expected to be over 20,000 by 2020)

So your rose tinted view is not viable in anyway it just doesn't make any bit of sense its just wasting money on something that cured a past problem (getting rid of steam), and as said above could be better spent in so many ways!



Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: swisstrains on December 22, 2018, 11:26:54 AM
I have no intention of getting involved in this increasingly bad tempered discussion other than to say that I agree with much of what ďkuritaĒ says. Some have said that the number of overbridges could have been a factor in not electrifying this line but that belief is obviously not held by Network Rail as the Manchester-Liverpool via Warrington Central route is high on the list of lines scheduled for electrification. Things could well change but I believe that we could see some activity in the next 5 years.
All things being equal I think this route would have been electrified before the Chat Moss route had the latter not provided such an increase in operating flexibility. I think Network Rail were looking more at linking together existing electrified lines for their own benefit than providing a better customer experience. Electrifying the 15 mile section between Newton-le-Willows and Manchester gave the city increased access to the WCML both north and south with subsequent increased diversion potential.
Itís a pity that 3rd Rail electrification is now frowned upon by Network Rail as an extension of the Merseyrail network from Hunts Cross to Manchester would have been a cheaper solution. Class 319 units could have operated on 25KV from Lime Street to Allerton/Hunts Cross changing to 3rd rail for the rest of the journey to Manchester.
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: NeMo on December 22, 2018, 12:18:08 PM
But now its time to take the rose tinted glasses off! As @exmouthcraig (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=5099) points out as a country we are skint hence how many billions are we in debt?

Sigh. National economies, their debts, and their deficits do not operate like your personal bank balance. The right wing media (like the Daily Mail) likes to trumpet the idea that the country is bankrupt because it suits their agenda, and frankly, it goes back at least as far as Margaret Thatchers admonition that we needed to run the country like one's own household budget, not spending more than we earn.

It's easy to explain; it's easy to understand; it sounds completely reasonable; and it's also completely wrong.

Here's a summary (in Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2018/04/17/everything-youve-been-told-about-government-debt-is-wrong/#25f77928314f)) taken from a recent IMF research paper into government debt:

"Barrett finds that the term structure of government debt matters considerably. Governments that have large amounts of short-term debt have greater financing needs, and this reduces their debt capacity. It also increases their default risk, since there is always a small risk that debt cannot be refinanced at rollover, and they roll debt over more frequently than countries with higher amounts of long-dated debt. The U.K., which is the principal test country in this paper, has a median debt maturity since 1960 of 8-10 years, which is long by advanced country standards. Using this as a parameter, Barrett estimates a safe debt/GDP level for the U.K. of 140%."

The rules that apply to you and me simply don't apply to advanced economies with long histories of paying their debts (or perhaps more accurately, servicing that debt). The debt itself becomes a tradable commodity, and by borrowing money now, national governments can pay for expensive projects that will only pay for themselves (perhaps indirectly) across decades.

The UK debt and deficit (two different things) have been causes for concern in some ways, but they have also been used as an extremely effective tool for justifying spending cuts. All a government needs to do is suggest the UK is spending more than it earns, and therefore needs to cut back, just like you or I would do in the same situation.

Building railways, whether electrified or otherwise, almost never pays for itself. Hasn't done for 150 years at least. But what new railways do provide (in the right places) is capacity for moving people and freight very quickly, and that, in turn, is what generates money (and ultimately, tax revenues).

Furthermore, if the UK can afford expensive infrastructure projects (by running up debt) whereas other countries cannot, then the UK can more quickly create the economic and logistical environment needed for new industries and the resulting inward investment. There's no point waiting until the UK can afford, say, HS2, if that delay means that foreign investors go elsewhere because they find easier access to labour, affordable housing, freight capacity, or whatever.

It's rather like foreign aid budgets. People get very cross when they hear X billion is being sent to India or wherever, especially after they hear about homeless people in London or whatever. But that foreign aid isn't just money lobbed over a wall, but spent carefully to create new markets and ensure political stability. Foreign aid is tiny (0.7% GDP) but has the potential to do real good that can ultimately pay for itself many times over, whether in new markets for UK products, or by preventing the greater expense of military action when poor countries slip into anarchy.

I know politics isn't popular with NGF moderators, which is why I'm sticking to economics here. My main aim is to ask people not to fall for the idea the UK economy works in the same way as their household budget, and instead go away and read some objective, unbiassed analyses of how national economies work and why overspending can actually be a good thing for countries, even if it's a terrible thing for a person.

Cheers, NeMo
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: red_death on December 22, 2018, 09:16:24 PM
That is a really good post Nemo!

In the wider point about pollution as Gareth and I pointed out, with a shift from diesel to electric all your doing on a secondary line is moving the point of emissions from train to power plant. Increasing efficiency through hybrids using regenerative tech for batteries is probably a better choice initially.

When considering electric traction you have to consider the power generation profile, the local air pollution issues, the existing infrastructure and trains (building new trains will probably have a larger impact compared to replacing old) etc you can't just say electric is best therefore fire away and electrify everything.


 cheers mike

Ps accusing people of being daily mail reading fascists doesn't really help!
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: Newportnobby on December 22, 2018, 09:22:45 PM
Global Moderator Comment There is a very good discussion going on in this thread but some are making it personal by name calling so if we can knock that aspect on the head it can only improve
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: NeMo on December 22, 2018, 09:29:54 PM
That is a really good post Nemo!
Thanks!

In the wider point about pollution as Gareth and I pointed out, with a shift from diesel to electric all your doing on a secondary line is moving the point of emissions from train to power plant.
True, but thermal efficiency comes into play here. Even if your locomotive burns the precise same fuel as the power station, the power station will be anything up to twice as efficient. So simply removing the fossil fuel burning part of the process to a large, stationary power plant rather than a small, relatively inefficient one on-board the locomotive reduces the amount of fuel needed per joule of energy used.

On top of that, electrification is usually better than burning diesel because most UK power stations burn some sort of gas, rather than diesel or even oil. Gas produces fewer pollutants (such as sulphur and nitrogen oxides) and no particulates. Given we're now at something like 20% nuclear and 20% renewables in the UK electricity generation mix, your 25kV supply will be a lot cleaner than any electricity generated by burning diesel in a locomotive.

Finally, a diesel locomotive has to lug around a bunch of fuel as well as a generator, whereas an electric locomotive doesn't, and all that extra weight means more fuel has to be consumed just to move the loco, let alone its train.

So all else being equal, electrification is always cleaner and more economical in terms of fuel.

Ps accusing people of being daily mail reading fascists doesn't really help!
Don't think I did, did I?
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: njee20 on December 22, 2018, 09:35:48 PM
Nah, not you, the OP. I agree with others that your post was excellent.
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: exmouthcraig on December 22, 2018, 11:06:12 PM
The simple fact is OUR country is skint! Pathetic excuses if you want to view it that way but quite honestly 65million people would rather see our ailing NHS, police force, Fire service, MOD and education sectors receiving the hundreds of billions of pounds that 1 person can't accept we don't have or can be bothered to squander on quite honestly a pointless exercise.

Sigh.  I didn't realize that I wandered into the Daily Mail academy of higher economics chaired by bitter old men with onions tied to their belts yelling at clouds.

So, let's take everything you say as true. Let's pretend for a moment that your oversimplified, catastrophising, economically illiterate, navel-gazing, view of the world is true.  Therefore, are we to conclude that the current electrification being undertaken by network rail is pointless and wrong?  Is that what you are trying to say?

The UK may be 'skint' now (it isn't, but let's go with it), but it certainly wasnt during most of the 2000s when the pound was soaring, interest rates were low, and yet the price of petro energy was soaring and both foreign and domestic finance were in sharp competition for such fixed-income-stream projects. as such, there may indeed be a very good engineering, priority, or other reason why this particular project was not undertaken then... or it might just be incompetence.  i dont know, which is why i out of genuine curiousity asked the question.  but the cumulative reality that this project has not been undertaken in 70 or so years since the end of the 2nd world war is nothing less than utterly pathetic, whatever the reasons.  its a travesty.

im done here.   please by all means don't let me interrupt the self-congratulatory jobsworthy 'common sense' of the experts here.  maybe if i come back some day you can all tell me how due to the kaiser the escalators dont work or due to the second carnatic war buying a ticket from point a to point b can still consists of a conversation at a ticket kiosk where a person tells you that if they split the ticket into a to c and then c to b you can get the same train seat for cheaper.

I object to being referred to as any of these. Just because we are giving you the reasons why it's still run by diesel trains and you refuse to accept those reasons. There's cleverer people then I that have given you vast in-depth reasons yet because it's something YOU object to we are all wrong.

Typical spoilt child syndrome. This is a friendly knowledge wealthy forum of which every question ever asked gets answered with great depth, it's not about stirring up arguments and petty name calling!!
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: acko22 on December 22, 2018, 11:36:11 PM
But now its time to take the rose tinted glasses off! As @exmouthcraig (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=5099) points out as a country we are skint hence how many billions are we in debt?
National economies, their debts, and their deficits do not operate like your personal bank balance.

I would agree they don't work the same, but they have an effect especially for those that work for the in a public service and are effected by   the fact there isn't as much money available! my military pension (which use to be one of the best going in any front line public position) in one swoop lost its worth in the region of 250k, and if that just me as one person how many more are losing out?
Forces pension are public debts, so money the country owes me so if they can not afford to pay me that 250k as part of my pension then by default there must be some issues there regarding what money we have available in the bank! (And for clarity to stop anyone making it political there has been 2 pension changes during my time in service but opposite parties and both have screwed me out of fairly earned pension money)

But back to the original topic and ignoring financial issues of if / can we afford it.

As @swisstrains (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=193) this route was at one stage high on the to do list for electrification, however it is very far from it now the priority in Northern England is the Cross Pennine routes that have much more importance not just locally but nationally. The truth is the southern Manchester - Liverpool corridor is a second grade route and to carry out any major works on it will have limited improvement and not justify the cost to benefit ratio.
This is why when choosing which Manchester - Liverpool route to electrify when it was a choice of one or the other, the route via Newton-Le-Willows was chosen as it was cheaper and actually gave many times more benefits, not just locally but nationally. I live near Patricroft on the electrified route and I have noticed just how busier the route has become and not just local services all over the country. At the moment numerous of these are diverted services while the Bolton corridor is completed and operating. But the paths that will be coming free are already filled with other services and soon to be the busiest route through Manchester for freight flows!

As I have said previously there are other technologies coming of age that are cheaper and have a greater benefit not just on a single line but regionally, as I previously noted the Hyrail trains by Alstom that are now on order in Germany for the price of electrifying this one route with extremely limited impact and benefit you could have a much greener fleet to serve not just that route but dozens of suitable routes.

So spending the sums we are on about here makes zero sense when for the same amount we can benefit so many more people and places, with a green zero emissions train which is in our grasp and showing it is capable of what is needed. We need to stop looking at the past solutions and to the long term solutions which are out there and are proving themselves.
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: Intercity on December 23, 2018, 01:00:51 AM
Well I have nothing to add, but will say by the thread title I expected a conversation about class 40s and Peaks on Transpennine services and 31s and 37s on club trains.

Oh well back to Flickr
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: Newportnobby on December 23, 2018, 09:21:37 AM
The right wing media (like the Daily Mail)


Ps accusing people of being daily mail reading fascists doesn't really help!
Don't think I did, did I?

Yes you did, I spotted that also

To take Nemo's comment and exaggerate 'right wing' to 'Fascism' is both insulting and unfair.
Stop the personal comments or this thread will be locked.
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: njee20 on December 23, 2018, 09:32:58 AM
Yes Iím really struggling with that. I thought it was Kuritaís opening paragraph which was more insulting, suggesting Craig was a Daily Mail reading whatever.

Random thread. The OP appeared to just want to create some friction, based on all of his posts. Iím all for decent debate, but someone just shouting their opinion loudly and repeatedly and insulting everyone else is a bit pointless.
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: crewearpley40 on December 23, 2018, 09:48:28 AM
i would like us to stick to trains and remember good old days, not go on about politics please

intercity  pointed out some ideas and if it carries on into politics maybe the moderators can please keep an eye out - its becoming a little frustrating reading
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: Newportnobby on December 23, 2018, 09:49:10 AM
Iím all for decent debate, but someone just shouting their opinion loudly and repeatedly and insulting everyone else is a bit pointless.

Agreed

i would like us to stick to trains and remember good old days, not go on about politics please

intercity  pointed out some ideas and if it carries on into politics maybe the moderators can please keep an eye out - its becoming a little frustrating reading

There is an inevitability some politics may creep into a thread about why such and such has not been done over the years but as long as it is impartial cross-party comment with no bias then, to my mind, that has to be accepted. Fear not - Nobby is watching!
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: crewearpley40 on December 23, 2018, 09:55:16 AM
we are entitled to opinions, agree and have views on the route, its history, why or why not the line should or should not be electrified, but its become political, boring, frustarting and not  the place for discussion. i have fond memories of lots of different classes and trains on the routes mentioned
and intercity mentions :

 I expected a conversation about class 40s and Peaks on Transpennine services and 31s and 37s on club trains.


remember class 47 /4s on the newcastle / scarborough - liverpools with mk 2s - those were the days
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: acko22 on December 23, 2018, 10:03:51 AM
remember class 47 /4s on the newcastle / scarborough - liverpools with mk 2s - those were the days

Errr, I remember none of that for me it's been well whats on there now!  :worried:
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: crewearpley40 on December 23, 2018, 10:06:11 AM
fair enough, transpennine / northern units
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: swisstrains on December 23, 2018, 10:23:03 AM
.......................remember class 47 /4s on the newcastle / scarborough - liverpools with mk 2s - those were the days

And don't forget these :)
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/72/193-231218101756.jpeg)
Title: Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
Post by: crewearpley40 on December 23, 2018, 11:16:35 AM
the deltic on the liverpool - york / scarborough