Local Rail

Post by **clv101** » 06 Jul 2007, 10:06

The Oil Drum has a great article today on Local Rail, examples from all over world show just what it possible:

Local Rail - An Overview

OrraLoon · Post by **OrraLoon** » 08 Jul 2007, 17:32

I'd be in favour of investing in new local rail lines as opposed to spending massive amounts on Intercity 'executive' travel.

There's an element of building up a constituency for change here. A bit like Thatcher did with the sale of council houses.

Adam1 · Post by **Adam1** » 08 Jul 2007, 20:01

OrraLoon wrote:I'd be in favour of investing in new local rail lines as opposed to spending massive amounts on Intercity 'executive' travel.

It's only 'executive' in the UK because the governing regime, post 1979, have decided that it's better if the masses drove. In France, TGV travel is affordable to the vast majority and is not perceived as elitist.

The focus should be on resilient rail systems, whatever their format. I agree that speed should not be the only goal but the UK could do with the freed up rail capacity that some TGV style lines from, say, London to Glasgow, via Birmingham and Manchester would bring.

The Oil Drum article was good. To most continental Europeans it is axiomatic that properly thought out rail is a good idea. The article's most important audience was the anglo-phone Europeans and North Americans, to whom, for the most part, such ideas are quite novel.

Post by **adam2** » 29 Aug 2007, 13:25

I hold shares in the West Somerset Railway, a preserved railway largely worked by steam locomotives.
This railway, after many years, now has a fully signalled connection to the national rail network at Norton Fitzwarren. As a result through passenger trains can now run from Minehead, on the WSR to Bristol, London or elswhere.
This summer through trains have run regularly between Minehead and Bristol, this service was primarily for customers of the Butlins holiday camp, but was open to anyone buying a ticket.

The main road between Minehead and Taunton is very congested in the holiday season. On a Butlins arrival/departure day, traffic speeds can drop to walking pace!
For some years, the motoring lobby have called for road widening, hopefully more use of the existing rail infrastructure will avoid the need for this. (Buses provide a good service at off peak times, but are useless at busy times due to traffic jams)

The railway coaches and locomotives used for the Bristol/Minehead services are at least 20 years old. The coaches are far more comfortable than modern trains and have ample leg room and luggage space (standard class on an old train is very similar to first class on new one!) The diesel locomotives used are said to consume less fuel (per passenger) than a modern "virgin voyager". So much for progress!

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 29 Aug 2007, 13:55

In Bury we have the "East Lancashire Railway", a steam railway with lots of old rebuilt classic steam locomotives.

It's great. And it has a connection to the national rail system. So there's always coal power if all else fails!

I've often wondered why the steam railway seems strangely exempt from the "Clean Air Act" round our way . . .

Post by **adam2** » 30 Aug 2007, 09:15

Andy Hunt wrote:It's great. And it has a connection to the national rail system. So there's always coal power if all else fails!

I am concerned not only about PO which should be relativly gradual, but also about a very sudden intteruption to oil supplies as might be caused by terrorism or natural disasters.
This could of course very seriosly affect the rail network.
I therefore believe that the government should subsidise the building of perhaps 25 steam locomotives to a traditional "low tech" design. These locomotives should be provided on long term loan to heritage railways, who would be required to keep them in good condition. In the event of an oil shortage the locomotives would be used on the national network for the movement of essiential goods.
A fleet of 25 would be very limiting indeed, but would certainly be better than nothing. Railway companies keep a reserve of diesel fuel, use of steam power on the heavier/longer distance trains would of course eke out the store for longer.

stumuz · Post by **stumuz** » 30 Aug 2007, 09:36

Would it be easier just to build a bigger/better diesel storage?

Post by **clv101** » 30 Aug 2007, 09:42

adam2 wrote:I am concerned not only about PO which should be relativly gradual, but also about a very sudden intteruption to oil supplies as might be caused by terrorism or natural disasters.
This could of course very seriosly affect the rail network.
I therefore believe that the government should subsidise the building of perhaps 25 steam locomotives to a traditional "low tech" design. These locomotives should be provided on long term loan to heritage railways, who would be required to keep them in good condition. In the event of an oil shortage the locomotives would be used on the national network for the movement of essiential goods.
A fleet of 25 would be very limiting indeed, but would certainly be better than nothing. Railway companies keep a reserve of diesel fuel, use of steam power on the heavier/longer distance trains would of course eke out the store for longer.

I can't begin to imagine any circumstances where a country like the UK wouldn't have enough oil to fuel 25 diesel trains. Global oil production could fall 50% (whole of Middle East nuked, total collapse of US etc...) and still the UK would have enough oil to fuel a few trains. "better than nothing" maybe, but nothing isn't a situation we have to consider.

Post by **adam2** » 30 Aug 2007, 10:00

[quote="clv101
I can't begin to imagine any circumstances where a country like the UK wouldn't have enough oil to fuel 25 diesel trains. Global oil production could fall 50% (whole of Middle East nuked, total collapse of US etc...) and still the UK would have enough oil to fuel a few trains. "better than nothing" maybe, but nothing isn't a situation we have to consider.[/quote]

I am not so sure, whilst a total lack of oil seems improbable, I have no faith in limited oil supplies being allocated to railways. The emergency services and the the military would probably come first. Even presuming that the railways did receive limited diesel supplies, the use of steam power in addition would certainly help.
Stockpiling of diesel would help (provided no one steals it as has happened regularly!) however stockpiles dont last forever, coal is mined in the UK and would provide a longer term solution.

I have become more of a doomer since reading "retrieved from the future" and "last light" These are of course fiction, but things fell apart very quickly in both novels!

Cycloloco · Post by **Cycloloco** » 30 Aug 2007, 23:31

adam2 wrote:
Andy Hunt wrote:It's great. And it has a connection to the national rail system. So there's always coal power if all else fails!

I am concerned not only about PO which should be relativly gradual, but also about a very sudden intteruption to oil supplies as might be caused by terrorism or natural disasters.
This could of course very seriosly affect the rail network.
I therefore believe that the government should subsidise the building of perhaps 25 steam locomotives to a traditional "low tech" design. .

This idea isn't as daft as it sounds at first, Remember that in the Bosnian war some areas of the country couldn't get fuel or spares for diesels so they took steam locos out of store and used those.

However we don't mine much coal here now. We import a lot and take it to power stations behind diesel locos. Why is "lowtech" steam worth rebuilding. Steam locos are cheap and simple so they are mechanically very efficient but thermally inefficient (5%?). It would be better to use coal for generating electricity in power stations at 30-40% thermal efficiency and more so if they are CHP stations.

If we really want the gov't to subsidise steam locos it would be better to support building a newer proposed model which is twice as thermally efficient. The design work has been done and all that is needed is a few million quid to build it. It would be used for excursions and the proposal is to burn gas oil {diesel) but it could run on coal. If you are interested in efficient steam locos see http://www.5at.co.uk

Post by **adam2** » 31 Aug 2007, 09:33

[quote="Cycloloco]

This idea isn't as daft as it sounds at first, Remember that in the Bosnian war some areas of the country couldn't get fuel or spares for diesels so they took steam locos out of store and used those.

Why is "lowtech" steam worth rebuilding. Steam locos are cheap and simple so they are mechanically very efficient but thermally inefficient (5%?). It would be better to use coal for generating electricity in power stations at 30-40% thermal efficiency and more so if they are CHP stations.

If we really want the gov't to subsidise steam locos it would be better to support building a newer proposed model which is twice as thermally efficient. The design work has been done and all that is needed is a few million quid to build it. It would be used for excursions and the proposal is to burn gas oil {diesel) but it could run on coal. If you are interested in efficient steam locos see http://www.5at.co.uk[/quote]

A most interesting link, thanks for that. I believe that the long term future of rail transport (on non electrified routes) will be modern steam locomotives such as that described in the link. However in the short term I feel that a small batch of tried and tested simple, low tech locomotives might be more suitable , despite the poor efficiency