!!

Not Registered?

Welcome!  Please register to view all of the new posts and forum boards - some of which are hidden to guests.  After registering and gaining 10 posts you will be able to sell and buy items on our N'porium.

If you have any problems registering, then please check your spam filter before emailing us.  Hotmail users seem to find their emails in the Junk folder.


Thanks for reading,
The NGF Staff.

Author Topic: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels  (Read 1150 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online themadhippy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 659
  • Country: gb
    • Awards
Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
« Reply #15 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

Offline njee20

  • Trade Count: (+4)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 22598
  • Posts: 4875
  • Country: gb
    • Awards
Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
« Reply #16 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.

Offline exmouthcraig

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 478
    • Awards
Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
« Reply #17 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???

Online jpendle

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 23638
  • Posts: 790
  • Country: us
    • Awards
Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
« Reply #18 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

Online railsquid

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 25547
  • Posts: 4965
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
    • My model railway website
    • Awards
Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
« Reply #19 on: December 10, 2018, 06:17:15 AM »
Hi @kurita  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.
Takahachikawa - Japanese and other trains

Birmingham Knotmore Street - (ex) GWR mainline through the Midlands

Offline acko22

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 931
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
    • PROJECT RAILWAY HONOUR - HONOURING THE PAST, HELPING TODAY
    • Awards
Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
« Reply #20 on: December 21, 2018, 03:40:11 AM »
Hi All,

 I agree @kurita  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!

Offline kurita

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Newbie
  • **
  • Posts: 8
  • Country: gb
    • Awards
Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
« Reply #21 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.

Offline stevewalker

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 336
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
« Reply #22 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.

Offline njee20

  • Trade Count: (+4)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 22598
  • Posts: 4875
  • Country: gb
    • Awards
Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
« Reply #23 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?

Offline acko22

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 931
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
    • PROJECT RAILWAY HONOUR - HONOURING THE PAST, HELPING TODAY
    • Awards
Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
« Reply #24 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.

Offline kurita

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Newbie
  • **
  • Posts: 8
  • Country: gb
    • Awards
Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
« Reply #25 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.
 

Offline exmouthcraig

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 478
    • Awards
Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
« Reply #26 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.


Offline kurita

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Newbie
  • **
  • Posts: 8
  • Country: gb
    • Awards
Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
« Reply #27 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.

Offline njee20

  • Trade Count: (+4)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 22598
  • Posts: 4875
  • Country: gb
    • Awards
Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
« Reply #28 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.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2018, 09:06:06 AM by njee20 »

Offline acko22

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 931
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
    • PROJECT RAILWAY HONOUR - HONOURING THE PAST, HELPING TODAY
    • Awards
Re: Manchester to Liverpool - diesels
« Reply #29 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 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!



« Last Edit: December 22, 2018, 09:49:10 AM by acko22 »

 

Please Support Us!
June Goal: £55.00
Due Date: Jun 30
Total Receipts: £60.00
Above Goal: £5.00
Site Currency: GBP
109% 
June Donations


Advertise Here