Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

Bi-mode argument rumbles on

The bi-mode debate rumbles on. For decades the economics of diesel versus electric was argued
  1. The overall thermal efficiency of diesel was around 30% (depending whom you asked) whereas electric was around 20%.
  2. Electric trains and locomotives were less expensive in first cost than their diesel counterparts.
  3. Electric trains and locomotives were less expensive in running cost than their diesel counterparts.
  4. Electrification was not worth while unless traffic density was at a level sufficient to justify the installation of the fixed equipment.
  5. Electrification caused less pollution at the point of use.
  6. Electrification gave flexibility as to energy sources.
This probably lists all the most important factors. Applying figures to them is uncertain, but however it is done, the end result is a "triage". There are routes which must be electrified, routes which are definitely not worth electrifying, and routes where it makes little difference either way.

The other consideration is the break-even point for haulage by diesel locomotives rather than DMU, which most authorities suggest is five or six vehicles, and the end result is that the system will have routes which are not electrified throughout their length and are unlikely ever to be eg London to Cornwall. On such routes, until someone thought up the idea of bi-mode, it was accepted that diesel running under the wires was inevitable. I suspect the energy costs of carrying around diesel engines under the wires, and transformer packs off the electrified routes, is not particularly significant in the overall costs. And until recently, it was always argued that running a diesel powered train results in a saving of energy compared to running it under electric power!

The biggest costs on the railway are track costs, partly related to weight, the capital costs of the rolling stock, and staff costs, incurred in operating and maintaining trains. Energy costs are a relatively small item compared to the others.

From this, the following strategy emerges
  • keep old rolling stock in operation for as long as possible and do not withdraw it unless maintenance costs are starting to climb or it fails to satisfy requirements.
  • KISS - avoid complexity unless it is robust and the technology is mature so as to minimise the capital cost of new rolling stock and its subsequent maintenance costs.
On that basis, bi-mode has only a marginal place on the railway. As a mainstream operating practice it is nothing more than a fad, just the kind of fad that is to be expected from theoretically-minded civil servants. It is, incidentally, far from new, having been embodied long ago in the class 73 electro-diesels, a useful fleet which could operate under limited power away from electrified routes.

Kommentarer

Skicka en kommentar

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer

The Zombie Train that refuses to die

The Guardian has published a couple more articles against HS2, one by specialist rail commentator Christian Wolmar, and another today by journalist Simon Jenkins. The main arguments in favour will doubtless be wheeled out by the commentators: the need for capacity and the disruption caused by upgrading existing routes. HST itself will severely disrupt services to Euston during the construction period. Capacity can be increased at a fraction of the cost by a variety of measures, provided that it is accepted that the additional traffic will run at existing speeds. It is not generally known that the Midland main line is, or was, four track all the way from London to Trent Junction, between Nottingham and Derby. This is because the additional tracks are separate, having been added for coal trains which trundled down to Brent sidings, on the edge of London, from a collection point at Toton in Nottinghamshire, where the Midland Railway build a huge marshalling yard. Beyond Derby, the main l...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer