Battery trains fool’s gold

A piece by the railway news video Green Signals recently reported the fast charging trials for battery operated electric trains on the West Ealing to Greenford branch, in west London. In a comment under the video, I described the project as technological overkill, bearing in mind that before dieselisation in the 1960s it was worked by the tiny steam locomotives of the Great Western 1400 class, a 1932 design based on an 1870s design. The money that has been spent on the experiment would have paid for a small fleet of the old things. Elsewhere in the comments, I was critical of the 800 series trains. This produced a response from the makers of the video, as follows.

“I may be grasping at straws here but I am guessing you don't like 8xx series trains all that much and rather wish we still had Kings, Castles and (for the branches) 14xx's. Fair?”

My reply was as follows...

Yes you are grasping at straws. The model for long distance stock is the class 180, which is a 23 metre vehicle with a bay dimension of the golden figure, 1.9 metres, which gives a proper alignment of seats and windows, and luggage space between seat backs, where it will not get stolen. This appears to have been based on the 1986 BREL International, and was, I understand produced by a member of the same design team then at the Derby Technical Centre. The best of the bogie designs remain the B4, BT10 and T3-7 (the one under the class 442).

We need a new design of electric locomotive to power them. Obvious choices would be the Traxx or Vectron for the UK gauge. 

The 26 metre vehicles of the 800 series with small wheeled bogies at 17 metre centres are a flawed concept. I understand that they are track bashers. The poor ride quality would suggest this. The wide spacing between the vehicles and the rooftop clutter makes for poor aerodynamics, the seats are dreadful and getting off these trains can be perilous due to the step gap and poorly placed handrails.  Short fixed formation trains are a dumb idea, especially when they do not have through gangway connections. So is the use of wide extruded aluminium planks for bodyshells, and that is for a long list of reasons, and yes I am well aware that it is done for the convenience of the manufacturers.

With 120 oiling points, and “fancy boilers” the GW four cylinder designs would not be my preferred choice of steam locomotive for present day use. I would be looking for something cheap and cheerful, perhaps similar to the LNER B1, or Southern S15, of course with light oil firing, high superheat, modern exhaust system and comfortable, German style fully enclosed cab.

For routes which are not worth electrifying, the gradual introduction of this traction would hugely improve the economics of the railways, which are currently burdened with the capital costs of absurdly expensive modern rolling stock. Remember that most trains spend a significant proportion of their service life doing nothing at all, including being laid up in store for long periods, as your own series has reported. The capital and interest charges still have to be met when the trains are parked out of use.

As regards lightly used routes, if something like a 1400 class will do the job (that design is based on an 1870s type), why spend fortunes on technological overkill? As far as zero carbon is concerned; the industry should refuse to play the expensive game. They account for 0.7% of UK carbon emissions.

Link to video

 

The Fiscal Black Hole

Richard Murphy, the accountant and policy analyst, has just produced a video on the fallacy of the £20 billion black hole in government finances. It is worth watching, but can you spot the hole in his argument?

Murphy is partly correct, but also dangerously misleading. He has forgotten that there is a fixed supply of some things, such as land, which all buildings require—homes, factories, shops and offices. Creating money too freely leads to a land price boom. This was the main long-term effect of Quantitative Easing. It sent house prices sky high. 

The notion that unemployment is due to shortage of aggregate demand is the great Keynesian fallacy. If Murphy understood the idea of the NAIRU (the Non Inflationary Rate of Unemployment), which has been around since 1959, he would know that pushing money into the economy cannot get rid of unemployment without causing accelerating inflation. Money has lost 98% of its value since 1945. It is one of the reasons why Britain's industry has all but disappeared.

Governments can indeed create unlimited money but it then needs to be withdrawn from circulation through the tax system. When the tax system punishes honest work and wealth creation, it is not fit for purpose, but that is what we have had for the past 80 years.

The link to the video is here.