GWML Electification

[D854_Tiger]

Very Trumpian (I am being unfair to you - sorry - but initial interpretation could easily pick that up, in the way that Trump and his corrupt idiot friends seem to be so prone, to protect their own interests)..

 

Facts are that:

 

a) rules changed in 2010, not as you claim.

 

b) average life expectancy reduction is claimed as 6 months, and that ranges as much from heart conditions as from respiratory diseases, from a worst case of 27 years to almost nil effect (WHO agglomerated scientific research papers reports averages, across four continents and 64 cities, 2003-2015, Source WHO 2016 paper.).

 

c) long term effects are now regarded (across all WHO affiliated research) as more important than short term (largely respiratory) effects.

 

d) Kings College reporting (the primary GLA source) acknowledges improvements in 2017. That's true. But the causes of the improvements are due to "nanny state" initiatives, which you and Boris Johnson seem to denigrate, although acknowledging some need for them, I accede.

 

e) and perhaps your greatest Trumpian moment - environmentalist consultancies and advocates have to make these cases in order to maintain their income etc etc. Far, far, obscenely far more money is earned by the consultancies, research organisations and certain US university departments, paid for by Exxon, Aramco, Halliburton and Valero for example, that have continued to try to selectively use air quality, and other environmental data, to support the continued use of fossil fuels without restriction. We are not red-neck, hillbillies, that believe that sh1t.

 

Even BP and Royal Dutch Shell have now admitted that, in the past, they have been less than objective with their "research" (which is why they are now buying heavily into "green" power companies). Much as some of the cigarette conglomerates have supposedly come clean, and are belatedly buying up pretend smoking technology.

 

I confess. I have a diesel car and I smoke like a chimney. I am a hypocrite. I believe most of the evidence that Jacob Tree Frog and his chums deny, but I have not acted on it that much. I share your view that completely unbalanced research or interpretation could lead us to the wrong solutions, which I think is your main point, above all else. But let us not pretend that there is not a war out there about science v "common sense". For Trump to stand up at the State of Disunion speech and claim that the polar ice cap has never been bigger than it is now, is a fine example of the new normal. You are trying to be a bit reasonable. I cannot, whilst people like him, Farage, Tree-Frog and others peddle their garbage.

 

A small victory is that even the Trump machine has been unable to gain the acceptance of their sponsored new head of the House Environmental Committee, who had expressed consistent anti-climate change rhetoric. She was unable to answer even the most simple questions about environmental issues in the bi-partisan approvals procedure. But oil-company-arse-licker Scott Pruit is still there as the EPA Director. What price objectivity in the new Brexit-speak?

 

 

I perhaps should have made it clearer that I am not a climate change denier it was just on the specific issue of air quality it struck me as fear mongering to imply that 40,000 people are dying prematurely, without saying it was months rather than years, which was the preferred approach of most of the climate campaigners.

 

Having said all that I do give thanks that I don't live in central London or have to breath their air.

 

I stand by what I say on the nanny state industry, in general, if your job is in the doom watch business then you don't go on telly and say there's nothing to really worry about in case the rest of us might wonder why we need you.

 

In short, I suspect they do lay it on a bit thick and remember many of them work for the kind of charities that you will never catch shaking a tin outside of Tesco but will be relying on public funding.

 

My particular gripe is that my (moderate) level of alcohol taxes are spent on charities like Alcohol Concern (who asked them to be concerned) who then employee a bunch of Puritans to spend all their time telling me I should be dead already and using it as an excuse to campaign for higher alcohol prices.

 

As far as climate change is concerned, I suspect it's not so much what people do as the sheer number of them that are doing it and that should be the real concern, not much use claiming to be Green then knocking out four kids.

 

Then all the evidence is that the wealthiest populations on the planet are suffering from population decline (a nice problem to have as far as the planet is concerned) so I'm not sure about the concept of making us all poorer in order to save the planet.

[jjb1970]

Of course direct air capture could make all assumptions on future energy and fuel use redundant. Putting that aside, I think the diesel engine has reached the same point as the steam locomotive in the 1930's, it seems laughable now to read old presentations and papers where steam engineers waxed lyrical about the potential of roller bearings, higher superheat, improved metallurgy etc to keep the steam locomotive relevant and how it had so much potential for further development when it was technologically about to become an irrelevance. The diesel engine has probably been developed as far as it'll go, for sure improvements will be made and you can make anything better, but fundamentally it is hard to see it moving that much further.

 

On emissions, the use of urea in diesel engines is as a reductant for selective catalytic reduction, that abates NOx emissions, it doesn't affect other emissions however there are various other abatement systems and SCR is far from being the only NOx abatement technology for engines. At some point people might start asking the same question as they did for automotive engines, i.e. how relevant are the test cycles to in-service emissions. I just see much of the current debate as the equivalent of re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, as thermal combustion processes are associated with a range of emissions, most of which are not especially desirable and which are harmful to public health.

 

On the political aspects, it is worth noting that the US EPA has traditionally been much more rigorous in its approach to emissions which threaten public health than other parts of the world and despite predictions of doom under the current regime from where I sit they're still a more competent and active regulator for local emissions than any others I interact with. Remember it was governments that promoted diesels as a way of lowering carbon emissions (the other emissions are nothing new, and other regulators questioned the wisdom of promoting diesel) just as it was governments that were happy to live with emissions test cycles that were less than completely representative of reality.

[Pandora]

"governments that promoted diesels as a way of lowering carbon emissions" in response to some INTENSE  LOBBYING by the  EU car makers, car makers who were blind-sided and threatened  by  Japanese petrol-hybrid low-emission and  60 mpg  car technology,  20 years in advance of their own meagre offerings

Edited February 4, 2018 by Pandora

[jjb1970]

"governments that promoted diesels as a way of lowering carbon emissions" in response to some INTENSE  LOBBYING by the  EU car makers, car makers who were blind-sided and threatened  by  Japanese petrol-hybrid car technology,  20 years in advance of their own meagre offerings

 

Quite, so you're agreeing that Europe should consider glass houses and stones before getting too preachy about other parts of the world on emissions issues.

[Coryton]

I stand by what I say on the nanny state industry, in general, if your job is in the doom watch business then you don't go on telly and say there's nothing to really worry about in case the rest of us might wonder why we need you.

 

And, likewise, if you are in a position to take a more balanced view, the media are somewhat likely to take the "doom and gloom" end of whatever range of predictions you're making because it makes better headlines.

[billbedford]

I perhaps should have made it clearer that I am not a climate change denier it was just on the specific issue of air quality it struck me as fear mongering to imply that 40,000 people are dying prematurely, without saying it was months rather than years, which was the preferred approach of most of the climate campaigners.

 

The 40,000 figure was alway bogus. The original reports calculated that air pollution caused a certain number of years loss life year aggregated over the whole of the UK, but  there was concern that people will not understand that well, so they translate that figure into damage equivalent to 40,000 deaths, an average of 11.5 years early instead. The actual average reduction of life was of the order of weeks per person rather than years.

 

Of course the original report could have been biased and of poor quality, but who knows.

[jjb1970]

I'm a bit of a tree hugger, but the eco lobby are as guilty of publishing poor papers intended to support an agenda as anybody else. They've published some howlers on black carbon in recent times.

[Budgie]

My particular gripe is that my (moderate) level of alcohol taxes are spent on charities like Alcohol Concern (who asked them to be concerned) who then employee a bunch of Puritans to spend all their time telling me I should be dead already and using it as an excuse to campaign for higher alcohol prices.

If alcohol gets too expensive I shall have to go back to brewing my own, which will reduce my modelling time.

[dibber25]

I thought this thread was about GW electrification? How far back do I need to dig to find a mention of railways? And whatever happened to the RMweb ban on political discussions? I have to turn off the TV on Thursday evenings to avoid people arguing about politics. Now it looks like RMweb is going the same way.

[Pandora]

"Perhaps Roger (Ford) needs to define (Railway Electrification) unaffordable."

 

Yes he needs to be more specific, is he alluding to:

 

1) Cost/Benefit  yield of electrification is negative,

 

2)the piggy bank of funds for electrification is empty and the Treasury and Civil Service have " closed the account"

 

3) the finances of the economy  means there are more important projects  for public investment funding

[jim.snowdon]

I thought this thread was about GW electrification? How far back do I need to dig to find a mention of railways? And whatever happened to the RMweb ban on political discussions? I have to turn off the TV on Thursday evenings to avoid people arguing about politics. Now it looks like RMweb is going the same way.

I agree with you, although all the time the UK's main line railway network is funded by the State, it is going to be subject to the perils of government politics.

 

Jim

[D854_Tiger]

I agree with you, although all the time the UK's main line railway network is funded by the State, it is going to be subject to the perils of government politics.

 

Jim

 

Given recent events and the level of government intervention leading to those events, some might argue that just starting a thread entitled GW Electrification was an open invitation to bring politics to the table, a bit like starting a thread on a franchise award, fare rises or the latest NUR strike call.

 

I mean if it says it on the tin ....

 

Anyway, I once mentioned on here that I quite liked Voyagers and blimey ........ did that ever turn out to be political in an heretical kind of way.

[Pandora]

I agree with you, although all the time the UK's main line railway network is funded by the State, it is going to be subject to the perils of government politics.

 

Jim

The cost of the GWML project at £2.8 billion divided by the population of the UK is a considerable sum of money per employee of working age,  or per family,  I doubt if a private company could raise such a sum of money, therefore no choice! Only the State can back such massive projects

Edited February 5, 2018 by Pandora

[jonny777]

Although Eurotunnel and its subsidiaries managed to raise the money to build the channel tunnel without any state finance. 

[Mike Storey]

Although Eurotunnel and its subsidiaries managed to raise the money to build the channel tunnel without any state finance. 

 

True, and I bet you could find someone to finance the GWIP, if you gave them a 68 year concession too!

[jim.snowdon]

The cost of the GWML project at £2.8 billion divided by the population of the UK is a considerable sum of money per employee of working age,  or per family,  I doubt if a private company could raise such a sum of money, therefore no choice! Only the State can back such massive projects

The position now is that Network Rail is now treated as a state-owned company whose funding ang borrowing is considered part of the Public Sector Net Borrowing, whereas in earlier times Railtrack and, for a while, NR were effectively private not for profit companies whose only shareholder was HMG. At that stage, they were free to raise money on the open market (and did). It is useful to remember that a considerable chunk of Crossrail's nearly £15bn cost did not come from state funding either.

 

Jim

[jjb1970]

The cost of the GWML project at £2.8 billion divided by the population of the UK is a considerable sum of money per employee of working age,  or per family,  I doubt if a private company could raise such a sum of money, therefore no choice! Only the State can back such massive projects

 

Plenty of private companies fund programs with much bigger budgets than £2.8 billion. The determining factor isn't the size of investment (within reason, that reason being a lot higher than 2.8 Billion) but the rate of return and risk. Offer investors a program with attractive risk and rate of return and 2.8 Billion isn't that big as these things go.

[Geoff Endacott]

There's a bloke in Cornwall who could have done the job a lot cheaper.

 

His name is Denzil Penberthy.

 

Geoff Endacott

[Coryton]

I thought this thread was about GW electrification? How far back do I need to dig to find a mention of railways? And whatever happened to the RMweb ban on political discussions? I have to turn off the TV on Thursday evenings to avoid people arguing about politics. Now it looks like RMweb is going the same way.

 

7 posts back mentions steam locomotives...admittedly somewhat in passing...

[96701]

There are a few more masts up in Wales and a Feeder Station at Canton, so something's happening.

[Mike Storey]

The position now is that Network Rail is now treated as a state-owned company whose funding ang borrowing is considered part of the Public Sector Net Borrowing, whereas in earlier times Railtrack and, for a while, NR were effectively private not for profit companies whose only shareholder was HMG. At that stage, they were free to raise money on the open market (and did). It is useful to remember that a considerable chunk of Crossrail's nearly £15bn cost did not come from state funding either.

 

Jim

 

True of NR, but RT was most certainly a company with private shareholders, that needed to make profits to pay dividends. It raised a small fortune to pay for upgrades, not underwritten directly by HMG (although the collateral was effectively HMG controlled track and station access future income), whereas NR raised money with the clear guarantor as HMG.

[jjb1970]

I thought this thread was about GW electrification? How far back do I need to dig to find a mention of railways? And whatever happened to the RMweb ban on political discussions? I have to turn off the TV on Thursday evenings to avoid people arguing about politics. Now it looks like RMweb is going the same way.

 

Reasonable to a point, but if the important decisions affecting the railways are taken by government and a thread concerns a major electrification program which has gone way over budget and so threatens the viability of further electrification works in significant part due to the ineptitude of a government department then it is hard to avoid politics. The Class 800's which are an important part of the future of the GWML were the result of a government program, again it is difficult to talk about the trains without the development and purchasing process entering discussions which means politics thanks to those processes. On technology, some of the most important decisions which will shape future trains off the wires are being taken by people outside railways (i.e. politicians), if you want to speculate on future rail vehicle powering then it is meaningless to avoid consideration of the technical changes which will result from regulatory changes intended to curb climate change and/or to reduce local pollution. And if we look beyond GWML the Southern trains debacle has been a political issue pure and simple.

 

I'd consider the future of electrification, the Class 800, future rail powering technology and more to be of interest to rail enthusiasts and it is pretty much impossible to discuss these things without politics entering the discussion. Why are we building bi-mode trains which may not be the best performers on diesel, try considering answers to that question if you remove politics. Yet it is a legitimate issue of interest to rail enthusiasts and certainly relevant to a thread about GWML electrification.

 

We have a railway which is nationalised in all but name. NR is nationalised and DafT make the important decisions for passenger TOCs, if the government (or more accurately, tax payers and those who lend the government money) are funding the railways, DafT make the important decisions and the infrastructure is nationalised then it is pointless to pretend that politics is not an inherent part of the railways. To pretend otherwise and limit discussion to talking about what colour trains are painted and what train worked what service would leave a biblically huge elephant in the room and mean that most of the interesting topics for discussion would be off limits.

Edited February 6, 2018 by jjb1970

[D854_Tiger]

The cost of the GWML project at £2.8 billion divided by the population of the UK is a considerable sum of money per employee of working age,  or per family,  I doubt if a private company could raise such a sum of money, therefore no choice! Only the State can back such massive projects

 

Errr .... I seem to remember the private sector built and operated the railways for the first one hundred years of their life before the state ever became involved (sort of).

 

State intervention, regulation and interference (some of it good, a lot of it bad) has made rail (and road) building hopelessly uneconomic for the private sector, most especially when the state insists their interventions must be paid for by loading the costs onto the projects.

 

It has also made inevitable the sort of (work for the boys) big business carve ups that were experienced during the Marples era and still go on.

 

Plus, in the case of rail, the state's interventions and political considerations (i.e. votes) have ensured realising a level playing field, for all modes, resulting in the best technology for the job, will always be something of a pipe dream.

 

Of course, the idea the state could never be involved in transport is also a pipedream, in a modern democracy, but it is in all our interests, as taxpayers, that ways should be found for as much funding for transport as is realistically possible to come from the private sector.

 

A lot of what is being funded nowadays on the privatised railway, in truth, would never happen if left to the state, as they are too busy doing (and paying) for other things, perceived to be far more important, such as universal healthcare.

[olivegreen]

The British are not unique in creating such situations. If you do not already know about it (and I'm sure most here do know - it may have been mentioned in these pages, too), it is worth reading about the Dutch Fyra eperience. One source is:

 

https://dutchreview.com/news/fyra-the-dutch-high-speed-rail-debacle/

 

It is an almost textbook 'state monopoly + lowest price bidder + inexperienced manufacturer + dodgy international contracts … etc etc' way not to do it.

 

(And that's leaving aside the odd choice of a Swedish name for something intended to serve the Netherlands and Belgium!)

[corneliuslundie]

While I agree that it is almost impossible to avoid politics when discussing the modern railway (and probably always was, as many parliamentary decisions on railway Bills were extremely perverse), we need to respect that this forum is provided for us to rabbit on endlessly, completely free of charge, by Andy and his colleagues. So it is their rules we must follow. I admit that at times I have broken them.

Jonathan