Royal Mail Zero Carbon - more trains?

[adb968008]

36 minutes ago, KingEdwardII said:

That REALLY isn't true. Technical revolutions happen all the time and are driven by technology advances and economics.

 

To take one of your examples - the car. The real revolution was the Model T Ford - assembly line mass production. Date: 1908. Nothing to do with war.

 

Similarly with computers - first the mainframe in the early 1960s and then the PC in the late 1970s. Both driven by technology advances allied to changes in economics. No war involved, just $$$.

 

War may stimulate some advances where related to military equipment - Radar and the Tank are two classic examples. I'd argue that both of these were related to technical advances originating elsewhere and before any war, but there is no doubt that the cavity magnetron, for example, was invented expressly as a result of WWII.

 

Yours, Mike

Military tech drives Commercial development 100%…

think about that next time you use your Microwave to warm pre-packed frozen food, or open tinned fruit, or take something from a ziplock bag.

 

Even the good old Biscuit traces its history to naval endeavours centuries ago.

 

Whilst on about the car, consider it was the Romans who went for straight roads to put them on, for a military reason.. a fast road is the straightest one you can march centurions down, and the distance between many Roman towns in England is gauged against travel distance to lunch and in a full day an army can march.

 

As for the 1960’s Mainframe, the guys in Bletchley park have a good explanation why an RU is 1.75 inches… if you google that on your iphone consider the encryption being used, as thats a military thing too.

 

Rivets, Pallets, Teabags the list of commercial products which have been commercialised from war is endless… I often compare  the electric cable on a reel in the garden and think back to soldiers wiring up a mine in ww2.

Edited July 12, 2022 by adb968008

[DY444]

On 08/07/2022 at 17:00, Hesperus said:

 

My thought would be to lock one or more coach's out of passenger use at off peak times.  That way it would encourage operators to use longer trains so peak time travel would be better.

 

On 08/07/2022 at 18:07, Trainshed Terry said:

 

Unfortunately I think that most modern rolling stock do not have locks on corridor connections don't have locks on them, any I can not see TOC's going to the expense of fitting locks, as most TOC's are interested in running trains for profit and that means putting bums on seats.  

 

I'm afraid the world has moved on.  Most of the TOCs are micro-managed by the DfT with virtually all expenditure having to be authorised and with every option for cost reduction being examined.  The concept of "encouraging" TOCs to run longer trains simply doesn't exist.  They run what the DfT tells them to run, and most of them don't have enough stock anyway.  Those that did like Southern have been forced to reduce the fleet size to save money.  Similarly the idea of TOCs "running trains for profit" largely doesn't exist either as they are all pretty much running at a loss and receiving subsidy.

[62613]

1 hour ago, KingEdwardII said:

That REALLY isn't true. Technical revolutions happen all the time and are driven by technology advances and economics.

 

To take one of your examples - the car. The real revolution was the Model T Ford - assembly line mass production. Date: 1908. Nothing to do with war.

 

Similarly with computers - first the mainframe in the early 1960s and then the PC in the late 1970s. Both driven by technology advances allied to changes in economics. No war involved, just $$$.

 

War may stimulate some advances where related to military equipment - Radar and the Tank are two classic examples. I'd argue that both of these were related to technical advances originating elsewhere and before any war, but there is no doubt that the cavity magnetron, for example, was invented expressly as a result of WWII.

 

Yours, Mike

To take another; the first diesel - driven merchant ship was launched before WW1; the Imperial German Navy made provision to install a diesel engine on one shaft of their dreadnoughts in WW1; all submarines built after about 1910 were diesel powered; about 40% of the UK deep sea merchant navy was diesel driven before WW2.

Edited July 12, 2022 by 62613

[DY444]

On 01/07/2022 at 09:51, Michael Hodgson said:

And just imagine the queues to recharge electric HGVs at Watford Gap services

 

That's actually a non-trivial issue.  The glib answer to the problem of the time it takes to recharge an EV compared to the time it takes to refuel an ICE vehicle is usually something along the lines of "just have a coffee while you wait - what's the problem?"  Well the problem is that what the railway would call dwell time is going to increase at service areas.  The oldest service areas unsurprisingly tend to be on the oldest motorways which also tend to be the busiest roads, like the southern end of the M1, and the oldest service areas tend to have the smallest car parks.  Watford Gap being a good example.  Longer dwell time in small car park equals trouble. 

[ruggedpeak]

1 hour ago, DY444 said:

 

Announce a date with no technical solution to replace the thing you're banning.  That always works 🤔

Standard Civil Service procedure, incumbent suppliers love it as they get contract extensions without competitive bidding as Govt has already announced the replacement so is tied, only problem being that it never actually exists when it is needed. So incumbent gets to charge what they like as Govt are over a barrel, pay or lose the service altogether. Not limited to transport either.

[DY444]

1 hour ago, KingEdwardII said:

That REALLY isn't true. Technical revolutions happen all the time and are driven by technology advances and economics.

 

To take one of your examples - the car. The real revolution was the Model T Ford - assembly line mass production. Date: 1908. Nothing to do with war.

 

Similarly with computers - first the mainframe in the early 1960s and then the PC in the late 1970s. Both driven by technology advances allied to changes in economics. No war involved, just $$$.

 

War may stimulate some advances where related to military equipment - Radar and the Tank are two classic examples. I'd argue that both of these were related to technical advances originating elsewhere and before any war, but there is no doubt that the cavity magnetron, for example, was invented expressly as a result of WWII.

 

Yours, Mike

 

Er really?   The technological developments of the late 1950s, through the 1960s and beyond were largely motivated by the cold war.   A lot of computing and electronics development was spawned directly by the threat from the Soviet block and the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programmes for example were vehicles to channel a lot of that development and to provide scope for propaganda on the superiority of western tech.

[KingEdwardII]

1 minute ago, DY444 said:

Er really? 

Yes, really. Most of the important developments in tech in the late 1950s and 1960s were done in the private sector and were done for commercial reasons. And paid off handsomely for the companies involved. There were military/government programs, like the Apollo moonshots, but they were something of a sideline for the tech companies involved and did not have a great influence on the tide of commercial developments.

 

Yours, Mike.

[Hesperus]

12 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

 

I'm afraid the world has moved on.  Most of the TOCs are micro-managed by the DfT with virtually all expenditure having to be authorised and with every option for cost reduction being examined.  The concept of "encouraging" TOCs to run longer trains simply doesn't exist.  They run what the DfT tells them to run, and most of them don't have enough stock anyway.  Those that did like Southern have been forced to reduce the fleet size to save money.  Similarly the idea of TOCs "running trains for profit" largely doesn't exist either as they are all pretty much running at a loss and receiving subsidy.

 

Trying to move logistics from road to rail and move away from internal combustion engines is going to make HS2 look like kids pocket money.

 

Arguing that things can't be done because there isn't a lock on that door or the DfT were tight last month isn't the start of the problems it's going to cause.

 

I know it's all going to be terrible but I like to think of ways the future might be better.  I really shouldn't bother voicing those ideas on here.

[Jonboy]

11 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

That's actually a non-trivial issue.  The glib answer to the problem of the time it takes to recharge an EV compared to the time it takes to refuel an ICE vehicle is usually something along the lines of "just have a coffee while you wait - what's the problem?"  Well the problem is that what the railway would call dwell time is going to increase at service areas.  The oldest service areas unsurprisingly tend to be on the oldest motorways which also tend to be the busiest roads, like the southern end of the M1, and the oldest service areas tend to have the smallest car parks.  Watford Gap being a good example.  Longer dwell time in small car park equals trouble. 

But obviously we are just going to string overheads on the motorways between the variable speed limit gantries they are are erecting all over, fit trolley-bus style pantographs and charge the hgv’s on the move for the final miles off the cables???

 

Why do we need technology when there are 140 year old solutions out there???

[black and decker boy]

12 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

That's actually a non-trivial issue.  The glib answer to the problem of the time it takes to recharge an EV compared to the time it takes to refuel an ICE vehicle is usually something along the lines of "just have a coffee while you wait - what's the problem?"  Well the problem is that what the railway would call dwell time is going to increase at service areas.  The oldest service areas unsurprisingly tend to be on the oldest motorways which also tend to be the busiest roads, like the southern end of the M1, and the oldest service areas tend to have the smallest car parks.  Watford Gap being a good example.  Longer dwell time in small car park equals trouble. 

It’s not glib. I’d never buy derv on a motorway services but routinely stopped for a toilet & coffee stop. Now I do the same stop and recharge. My dwell time hasn’t changed.

 

EVs are here and working for many, albeit small % of overall car numbers in U.K. Charging infrastructure is moving at great speed, in both coverage, quantity and charge speed.
 

It’s possible that hydrogen may yet appear in a commercially viable  format for cars or buses or HGVs. It’s possible the Tesla Semi Truck proves a game changer and allows electrification of longer distance heavy goods. Local delivery LGV and HGV are already moving to EV format. DfT are pushing ahead with overhead electrification trials on U.K. motorways so that may be the answer.

 

I think it’s clear that the answer long term isn’t diesel or petrol.

 

Many people don’t like change so resist and rubbish it at every turn. Some are open minded and try it for themselves. I know which I am….

[DY444]

10 hours ago, black and decker boy said:

It’s not glib. I’d never buy derv on a motorway services but routinely stopped for a toilet & coffee stop. Now I do the same stop and recharge. My dwell time hasn’t changed.

 

EVs are here and working for many, albeit small % of overall car numbers in U.K. Charging infrastructure is moving at great speed, in both coverage, quantity and charge speed.
 

It’s possible that hydrogen may yet appear in a commercially viable  format for cars or buses or HGVs. It’s possible the Tesla Semi Truck proves a game changer and allows electrification of longer distance heavy goods. Local delivery LGV and HGV are already moving to EV format. DfT are pushing ahead with overhead electrification trials on U.K. motorways so that may be the answer.

 

I think it’s clear that the answer long term isn’t diesel or petrol.

 

Many people don’t like change so resist and rubbish it at every turn. Some are open minded and try it for themselves. I know which I am….

 

Just because your dwell time hasn't changed doesn't mean that applies to everyone. 

 

Charging infrastructure is not moving at great speed.   There are numerous reports out there from people who don't have an axe to grind explaining what the roll out rate needs to be and comparing it with what it is.  Not only is the actual rate not in the same ball park, it's not even on the same planet.  Even if it was we don't have enough generating capacity in the works to support it or to cover off the 8 to 10 days a year that wind contributes virtually nothing to the power mix.

 

You'd be hard pressed to find a national newspaper more enthusiastic about EVs than The Sunday Times.  It's transport editor eulogises about them regularly, in his world there are no problems other than how those in North London town houses can get a cable to their vehicle, it is a utopian solution, he has an answer to everything and the fact that most of his answers rely on tech that doesn't exist is of no concern to him.  However three times in 7 weeks the ST has carried pieces by different people who are pro-EV in principle and have tried living with an EV.  The story is always the same.  Local journeys, commuting moderate distances, charging infrastructure in the centres of the biggest cities: not too bad and largely viable.  Travelling distances that require en-route charging: hopeless.  Common issues mentioned are unserviceable or limited function charging points, no standard way of paying, and the shear sparcity of charging infrastructure over vast swathes of the country which makes finding a charger difficult, and often means an extended wait because the limited number that are available are in use already.

 

Basically the infrastructure cannot support the number of EVs already out there in many areas.  EV growth is running faster than infrastructure growth and so the problem is going to get worse in the short to medium term.  You don't have to look very hard on the internet to find EV owners who are saying never again.  If you're going to make a change as fundamental as this then you have to take the public with you.  If, as seems quite possible as EV numbers increase, the practical difficulties of owning an EV becomes a main stream issue then you risk creating a negative impression in the wider public.  Then it becomes an electoral issue and you probably have to water it down or delay it or both.  By contrast if you had an infrastructure programme which ensured these issues were mitigated before you started to ban things then you take the public with you. 

 

That's before you even get to the charge time/range/battery life conundrum and the likely effect on the residuals/used car market of finite battery life.  In short too much ideology and dependence on non-existent tech, not enough practicality and not enough analysis of the wider unintended consequences.  I'm not against EVs, I'm against badly thought out plans that have a high probability of failure at huge cost and from my perspective as a wizened old engineer with more laps of the block and T shirts than I can remember, this looks like a text book example.  Incidentally most of the issues go away with a longer phased transition via PHEVs but that's not what is proposed.

[62613]

50 minutes ago, DY444 said:

 

Just because your dwell time hasn't changed doesn't mean that applies to everyone. 

 

Charging infrastructure is not moving at great speed.   There are numerous reports out there from people who don't have an axe to grind explaining what the roll out rate needs to be and comparing it with what it is.  Not only is the actual rate not in the same ball park, it's not even on the same planet.  Even if it was we don't have enough generating capacity in the works to support it or to cover off the 8 to 10 days a year that wind contributes virtually nothing to the power mix.

 

You'd be hard pressed to find a national newspaper more enthusiastic about EVs than The Sunday Times.  It's transport editor eulogises about them regularly, in his world there are no problems other than how those in North London town houses can get a cable to their vehicle, it is a utopian solution, he has an answer to everything and the fact that most of his answers rely on tech that doesn't exist is of no concern to him.  However three times in 7 weeks the ST has carried pieces by different people who are pro-EV in principle and have tried living with an EV.  The story is always the same.  Local journeys, commuting moderate distances, charging infrastructure in the centres of the biggest cities: not too bad and largely viable.  Travelling distances that require en-route charging: hopeless.  Common issues mentioned are unserviceable or limited function charging points, no standard way of paying, and the shear sparcity of charging infrastructure over vast swathes of the country which makes finding a charger difficult, and often means an extended wait because the limited number that are available are in use already.

 

Basically the infrastructure cannot support the number of EVs already out there in many areas.  EV growth is running faster than infrastructure growth and so the problem is going to get worse in the short to medium term.  You don't have to look very hard on the internet to find EV owners who are saying never again.  If you're going to make a change as fundamental as this then you have to take the public with you.  If, as seems quite possible as EV numbers increase, the practical difficulties of owning an EV becomes a main stream issue then you risk creating a negative impression in the wider public.  Then it becomes an electoral issue and you probably have to water it down or delay it or both.  By contrast if you had an infrastructure programme which ensured these issues were mitigated before you started to ban things then you take the public with you. 

 

That's before you even get to the charge time/range/battery life conundrum and the likely effect on the residuals/used car market of finite battery life.  In short too much ideology and dependence on non-existent tech, not enough practicality and not enough analysis of the wider unintended consequences.  I'm not against EVs, I'm against badly thought out plans that have a high probability of failure at huge cost and from my perspective as a wizened old engineer with more laps of the block and T shirts than I can remember, this looks like a text book example.  Incidentally most of the issues go away with a longer phased transition via PHEVs but that's not what is proposed.

You seem to want to leave things as they are; why?

[KingEdwardII]

2 hours ago, 62613 said:

You seem to want to leave things as they are; why?

That was never said - what was addressed are the real practical problems with EVs.

 

My own view is that PHEVs are the right solution for today and the forseeable future. Local journeys on electric power, longer journeys using petrol/diesel for much of the distance.

 

If and when the issues with EVs are addressed, then I'm sure we shall all be happy to make the transition. Until then, an EV will not be on my agenda, since I have to make 300+ mile journeys reasonably regularly due to the distribution of our friends and relatives.

 

Yours, Mike

[black and decker boy]

I did 21k plus last year in an EV. Typical journey 100-150miles into rural Norfolk & Cambs. Longest single unbroken journey 240miles back from the lakes. Average cost per mile 5p. No queues and no problems finding charging points (in my defence, I was able to use the Tesla supercharger network which is a big advantage). Plenty of Apps out these to help for all the 3rd party locations.

 

I don’t dispute EVs don’t work for many and are currently unaffordable to a large % of people. I expect different technology will come forward, if not for cars then for bus / LGV / HGV. Big business is already investing in EV for transport, couriers in vans & LGVs and bulk hauliers (eg readymix concrete) for HGVs.

 

The problem with PHEVs is 1) they tie up charging points and are slow to charge their teeny tiny batteries and 2) the availability on the ICE engine means many don’t recharge and just drive them as they walkways did. This especially applies to those on work business with fuel cards where mpg doesn’t matter (to the driver). I’m not sure PHEVs are any kind of solution for the medium term and are a typical fudge.

[Michael Hodgson]

On 12/07/2022 at 21:52, black and decker boy said:

It’s possible that hydrogen may yet appear in a commercially viable  format for cars or buses or HGVs. It’s possible the Tesla Semi Truck proves a game changer and allows electrification of longer distance heavy goods. Local delivery LGV and HGV are already moving to EV format. DfT are pushing ahead with overhead electrification trials on U.K. motorways so that may be the answer.

 

I think it’s clear that the answer long term isn’t diesel or petrol.

 

All very well, but I envisage difficulties doing this for some types of oil-powered equipment, such as those massive road trains that drive across Australian deserts, a lot of construction or mining industry heavy plant and portable equipment that would only need an electrical supply for the duration of the job.  How about shipping - do we want the maritime world to adopt nuclear-powered container ships?  And will the world's armies all go for military EVs  - tanks that have to recharge at motorway servuce stations?

 

[ruggedpeak]

On 12/07/2022 at 21:01, Jonboy said:

But obviously we are just going to string overheads on the motorways between the variable speed limit gantries they are are erecting all over, fit trolley-bus style pantographs and charge the hgv’s on the move for the final miles off the cables???

 

Why do we need technology when there are 140 year old solutions out there???

Because the climate change industry is based on a number of fallacies. One of these is that new technologies will provide the solutions, like 'heat networks' are a new concept to combat climate change. The %^*y Romans had heat networks 2000 years ago....the Soviets used them for most of the 20th Century in Siberia etc etc.

 

Given Royal Mail relies on trucks and planes then reverting to rail is probably a good thing, along with changing the wider societal fetish with immediate/next day delivery, and buying stuff they don't actually need. Back to Red Star, order item, wait a day or two and pick it up at the station!

 

Was there any results from the trials of converted 320's or 321's for parcels use? Can't recall anything updates recently?

Edited July 14, 2022 by ruggedpeak

[jjb1970]

2 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

How about shipping - do we want the maritime world to adopt nuclear-powered container ships?  

 

 

Shipping is working on ammonia fuelled ships and investing in methanol, with liquified hydrogen as a possibility. There is also potential in synthetic diesel and gas. And new generation nuclear is under consideration. Shipping is one of the only industries with mandatory global CO2 requirements.

[admiles]

4 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

Because the climate change industry is based on a number of fallacies. One of these is that new technologies will provide the solutions, like 'heat networks' are a new concept to combat climate change. The %^*y Romans had heat networks 2000 years ago....the Soviets used them for most of the 20th Century in Siberia etc etc.

 

Given Royal Mail relies on trucks and planes then reverting to rail is probably a good thing, along with changing the wider societal fetish with immediate/next day delivery, and buying stuff they don't actually need. Back to Red Star, order item, wait a day or two and pick it up at the station!

 

Was there any results from the trials of converted 320's or 321's for parcels use? Can't recall anything updates recently?

 

That genie has long since escaped the lamp and there's no getting it back in. People want their ordered items delivered quicker, not slower. Think Amazon Prime with same day delivery in many places. It's hugely successful. 

 

While I get the sentiment I really can't see people wanting to trail along to their local (or not so) station to collect parcels. Plus many stations these days simply don't have the space for handling facilities. And that's before you get into the issues of line capacity and parcels carrying trains sitting blocking platforms whilst being loaded/unloading.

[Michael Hodgson]

33 minutes ago, admiles said:

 

That genie has long since escaped the lamp and there's no getting it back in. People want their ordered items delivered quicker, not slower. Think Amazon Prime with same day delivery in many places. It's hugely successful. 

 

While I get the sentiment I really can't see people wanting to trail along to their local (or not so) station to collect parcels. Plus many stations these days simply don't have the space for handling facilities. And that's before you get into the issues of line capacity and parcels carrying trains sitting blocking platforms whilst being loaded/unloading.

Apologies to those who have seen this info posted on a different thread.  The requirement could be met today using miniature autonomous rechargeable electric vehicles - this technology is already in commercial use in a handful of English towns for groceries, though I would say the technology and our footpaths need further development before it could become a more general solution, and not yet appropriate to rural application.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-61471989

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/new-food-delivering-robots-landing-23975901

[cctransuk]

5 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

Back to Red Star, order item, wait a day or two and pick it up at the station!

 

So how eco-friendly will it be when every package is collected by the recipient driving to the station - even in an electric car?

 

Think about it - an (electric) van delivering to the doorstep is difficult to beat, but by all means transport the goods from despatch hub to delivery hub by (electric) train.

 

CJI.

[black and decker boy]

8 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

All very well, but I envisage difficulties doing this for some types of oil-powered equipment, such as those massive road trains that drive across Australian deserts, a lot of construction or mining industry heavy plant and portable equipment that would only need an electrical supply for the duration of the job.  How about shipping - do we want the maritime world to adopt nuclear-powered container ships?  And will the world's armies all go for military EVs  - tanks that have to recharge at motorway servuce stations?

 

Low / zero carbon earthmoving equipment already in use and development continues. Electric powered cranes & excavators being used on HS2, hybrid & battery powered telehandlers & smaller excavators in use plus a plethora of smaller kit which had switched to fuel cell or battery. JCB developing hydrogen burn engines. Short term, HVO is seeing increased use as direct replacement for diesel.

 

Volco are well down the development route for electric, autonomous dumptrucks. Mining is the easier one to convert as routes stay the same and you have fixed base points to recharge. 

im sure the Ukrainians would think an EV tank that runs out of charge to be a good think but as they seem to do well blowing up the current ones, maybe it wouldn’t be enough of a challenge!!!

 

 

[Ian Smeeton]

Electric isn't new in quarries

 

Regards

 

Ian

[ruggedpeak]

13 hours ago, black and decker boy said:

Low / zero carbon earthmoving equipment already in use and development continues. Electric powered cranes & excavators being used on HS2, hybrid & battery powered telehandlers & smaller excavators in use plus a plethora of smaller kit which had switched to fuel cell or battery. JCB developing hydrogen burn engines. Short term, HVO is seeing increased use as direct replacement for diesel.

 

Volco are well down the development route for electric, autonomous dumptrucks. Mining is the easier one to convert as routes stay the same and you have fixed base points to recharge. 

im sure the Ukrainians would think an EV tank that runs out of charge to be a good think but as they seem to do well blowing up the current ones, maybe it wouldn’t be enough of a challenge!!!

 

 

Still doesn't overcome the problem of how you generate enough electricity to power all the electrical things that were once petrol/diesel etc. Nor the massive environmental damage caused by mining the materials needed for these systems and the neo-colonialism across the world (conveniently ignored by focusing on colonial issues from hundreds of years ago) as the race for resources continues apace.

[ruggedpeak]

16 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

So how eco-friendly will it be when every package is collected by the recipient driving to the station - even in an electric car?

 

Think about it - an (electric) van delivering to the doorstep is difficult to beat, but by all means transport the goods from despatch hub to delivery hub by (electric) train.

 

CJI.

Last mile isn't necessarily that simple and current delivery networks have no link to rail in many cases. It would be part of a mix, and forward looking authorities are moving to "active travel" options within towns and cities to reduce and remove short car journeys. So the journey to a station may be incorporated into other journeys or made in other 'active' ways. A key plank of current thinking is to remove car journeys, and a Red Star type service does not preclude that.

[PeterStiles]

18 hours ago, admiles said:

While I get the sentiment I really can't see people wanting to trail along to their local (or not so) station to collect parcels.

Well,

there is an existing Amazon feature called "Lockers", whereby you can nominate your delivery to be to an Amazon locker, and these are sited in "convenient" places - i've seen ones in the main shopping centre here, and some in light-commercial areas and there are even some at the local hospital.

 

So some people *do* order from Amazon and then "go somewhere" to pick their goods up....