Scrutable

Just a random thought while reading this post, but if I had replied it would have risked derailing (ho ho) the thread, so I'll anticipate the split here.

Why do we run actual trains --- huge, heavy locomotives or motor units or coaches, typically filled at 20% or less of capacity --- on smaller branch lines? Electrification costs a fortune and diesel is clunky and produces shitloads of CO2 and particulates.

Why don't we tear up the rails, tarmac over them, and provide an electric bus service? It would cost vastly less to maintain and run (the buses could even become driverless in the next few years if they had exclusive use of the paths/tracks), and we could use the money saved to expand rail technology into the 2-hour journey sweet spot for 400-600km journeys between major cities.

I presume that many people who understand transport systems better than me (i.e., almost everybody) have thought about this, so I'd be interested to know what the problems are perceived to be.

Guided busways already exist, there's one in Cambridge. It might be a good solution for the line (single track with crossing loops) that serves my bit of Wellington but one of the problems would be excluding other traffic - there are several level crossings where someone confused or malicious might join the permanent way rather than driving across it, creating a hazard.

basementer wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:49 pm

Guided busways already exist, there's one in Cambridge. It might be a good solution for the line (single track with crossing loops) that serves my bit of Wellington but one of the problems would be excluding other traffic - there are several level crossings where someone confused or malicious might join the permanent way rather than driving across it, creating a hazard.

The Cambridge one was actively opposed, as it is significantly less efficient that running trains on the right of way, assuming you could get access to the railway station in Cambridge. There was even a community funded attempt to start up a train service on the line, involving people like David Mackay (him what wrote "Climate Change Without the Hot Air and served as a government climate adviser).

There are many intermediate options between full size trains and ripping up the tracks to put buses on it. One that is regularly done is to run lighter weight trains on the lines - train nerds will correct me if I say "Pacers, etc.". You can easily adapt something the weight of a bus to run on rails, if you want to - as is done for maintenance vehicles with tires and drop down wheels that run on the rails. Usually pick-up trucks around here.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:08 pm

There are many intermediate options between full size trains and ripping up the tracks to put buses on it. One that is regularly done is to run lighter weight trains on the lines - train nerds will correct me if I say "Pacers, etc.". You can easily adapt something the weight of a bus to run on rails, if you want to - as is done for maintenance vehicles with tires and drop down wheels that run on the rails. Usually pick-up trucks around here.

Not a train nerd though have always liked them. I know there's this distinction between "heavy rail" and "light rail", and Pacers are possibly heavy rail, with trams being light rail. I know that the Wimbledon to Croydon rail line was converted to a tram line.

About Pacers, a few years ago I went to meet someone, necessitating a change onto a Pacer service. I almost pulled out when I saw the state of the rustbucket - I couldn't believe what I was seeing. It seems though they've largely disappeared now, thank the FSM.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:07 pm

basementer wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:49 pm

Guided busways already exist, there's one in Cambridge. It might be a good solution for the line (single track with crossing loops) that serves my bit of Wellington but one of the problems would be excluding other traffic - there are several level crossings where someone confused or malicious might join the permanent way rather than driving across it, creating a hazard.

The Cambridge one was actively opposed, as it is significantly less efficient that running trains on the right of way, assuming you could get access to the railway station in Cambridge. There was even a community funded attempt to start up a train service on the line, involving people like David Mackay (him what wrote "Climate Change Without the Hot Air and served as a government climate adviser).

The Cambs one actually runs past the end of my road. It works OK as a concept on it's own terms, but was very expensive to build as I recall. (As is new rail, but in this case they had to pull up the existing tracks that closed down in the 80s I think.) Whether it's better or worse than rail is hard to say.

Pros: the buses can divert onto normal roads, which they do in Cambridge city centre and also some of the towns up the other end of the route, and can also do this at any of the old level crossing sites along the route. So it is much more flexible about routes.

Cons: it is probably lower capacity than proper rail, though the buses can run much closer together than trains. (There's no signalling system involved, and they have the stopping distance of a bus, not a train, so don't need so much separation.) Rail would have provided better long distance connections, e.g. it would have been a quicker connection between Cambridge (and also Stansted Airport / Felixstowe docks, etc) and the northern end of the ECML. The bottom end of the busway causes a headache for reopening the Varsity line, as it has taken up the old rail corridor where it ran in a cutting between a load of houses.

Brightonian wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:57 pm

dyqik wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:08 pm

There are many intermediate options between full size trains and ripping up the tracks to put buses on it. One that is regularly done is to run lighter weight trains on the lines - train nerds will correct me if I say "Pacers, etc.". You can easily adapt something the weight of a bus to run on rails, if you want to - as is done for maintenance vehicles with tires and drop down wheels that run on the rails. Usually pick-up trucks around here.

Not a train nerd though have always liked them. I know there's this distinction between "heavy rail" and "light rail", and Pacers are possibly heavy rail, with trams being light rail. I know that the Wimbledon to Croydon rail line was converted to a tram line.

About Pacers, a few years ago I went to meet someone, necessitating a change onto a Pacer service. I almost pulled out when I saw the state of the rustbucket - I couldn't believe what I was seeing. It seems though they've largely disappeared now, thank the FSM.

I wasn't sure if Pacer was the right vehicle, tbh. But you can go as light as trams etc. and still be on standard gauge rails. Most of the Green Line in Boston runs like that, with a bit on rails in the roads.

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:29 pm

Just a random thought while reading this post, but if I had replied it would have risked derailing (ho ho) the thread, so I'll anticipate the split here.

Why do we run actual trains --- huge, heavy locomotives or motor units or coaches, typically filled at 20% or less of capacity --- on smaller branch lines? Electrification costs a fortune and diesel is clunky and produces shitloads of CO2 and particulates.

Why don't we tear up the rails, tarmac over them, and provide an electric bus service? It would cost vastly less to maintain and run (the buses could even become driverless in the next few years if they had exclusive use of the paths/tracks), and we could use the money saved to expand rail technology into the 2-hour journey sweet spot for 400-600km journeys between major cities.

I presume that many people who understand transport systems better than me (i.e., almost everybody) have thought about this, so I'd be interested to know what the problems are perceived to be.

If you want to provide a battery powered service, you'd still do much better to keep the rails intact. Rolling resistance is much lower, and weight supported can be higher, meaning you can carry more battery. It also gives you interoperability with other rail, including the possibility of rolling stock that can take advantage of electrification when present, and use battery or internal combustion when it isn't present.

If you already have the rails then there are more options than ‘huge heavy locomotives’ or full electrification. These lads for example (as seen here), or these other units.

Note that while both of those can be diesel powered, they’re able to use what are basically car engines and if fitted with the right kit should therefore be able to meet car-like emissions standards.

nekomatic wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 13, 2020 3:19 pm

If you already have the rails then there are more options than ‘huge heavy locomotives’ or full electrification. These lads for example (as seen here), or these other units.

Note that while both of those can be diesel powered, they’re able to use what are basically car engines and if fitted with the right kit should therefore be able to meet car-like emissions standards.

Those were the bunnies I was thinking of in addition to the pacers.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 13, 2020 3:26 pm

Those were the bunnies I was thinking of in addition to the pacers.

Didn't I read somewhere that the Pacer design was originally for a bus?

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 13, 2020 5:11 pm

dyqik wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 13, 2020 3:26 pm

Those were the bunnies I was thinking of in addition to the pacers.

Didn't I read somewhere that the Pacer design was originally for a bus?

A bus body on a freight wagon under frame as phased out by Iran in the mid-90s as being hopelessly primitive and dated. Still to be found on a UK (well Welsh*) regional network near you (if you’re near Wales).

*Northern Trains finally taking the brave leap into the Nineties as of ... *checks notes* ... last month. It is all hyperglow t-shirts and electronic dance music from here on in.

So, firstly, we did remove a sh.t-ton of railways with Beeching. We already had a massive clear-out. Probably got rid of too much stuff, hence why there's a lot of discussion of reinstating some Beeching'd railways. And, of course, we've already done some too - Borders rail, Robin Hood line, East-West rail, etc. But we did get rid of a lot of lines that had been created without too much thought and were never that viable. Some still exist - there's a few places where parliamentary services are running, for instance.

All rail lines need to be diesel-free by 2050. Diesel-only trains can be removed from 2040. Network Rail has an interim strategy to achieve this (here). It involves a lot of electrification (plus some hydro and batteries, but mostly wires on sticks). Yes, it's expensive but once it's done, it's done. The system should last for a good 60-80 years before renewal is needed, and it helps encourage modal shift. That's going to happen regardless, so in a way it's a bit moot. Not completely, but a bit.

There may well be certain locations where a superior service could be offered over what the railway provides. Possibly that's through more trains, but if it's actually better with buses then so be it. But in those cases, getting rid of a railway line is quite expensive. Firstly, you need to pass an act of Parliament to close it. Then, you obviously need to get rid of the signalling, stations, and t'permanent way, and any other unneeded systems, before paving over it all (making sure the drainage, etc. is all in good working order) and ensuring it integrates well into whatever other bus systems you have going on. All of that isn't a given for success, but might be (I have no idea if the Luton-Dunstable and Cambridge busways are considered to be any good, but from an outsider perspective they seem okay). Certainly, the idea of a small branch off the Midland mainline for Dunstable seems fairly daft these days.

But aside from the cost of the works themselves, there's also some intangible or uncertain costs - particularly opportunity costs - which may rear their heads. Some councils safeguard the old railway line route so it doesn't get built over (what to do then? Just roads?). What if the local area sees a population boom and the bus service gets overloaded - will you need to reinstate the railway? If so, was it worth the busway in the interim? Also, are buses generally seen as a bit scuzzy whereas trains are big and shiny and popular (as long as they're electric and not pacers)? Would a bit of a branding refresh be better for custom?

Note as well that moves away from our current fixed block signalling to moving block signalling, which we should see happen over the next 50 years, may allow for better capacity management at big junction stations where branch lines would terminate for changing onto mainlines. That might mean that there's more capacity for better branch line services, but it's all conjecture at this stage.

Overall, t's a fair question to ask, to be honest, but it's been pushed a fair bit by some loonies in the public arena in more extreme forms. There's one economist (maybe he's something else, I forget, and I can't find who he is at the moment), who is tbh a fairly sized prick on the issue of railways, who believes they should all be shut and turned into roads. Including the WCML et al. He's even done his own modelling and everything, and he definitely thinks he's right, even if the entire rest of developed civilisation disagrees with him.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:56 am

What if the local area sees a population boom and the bus service gets overloaded - will you need to reinstate the railway?

Portishead have been campaigning to reinstate the railway line to Bristol for 20 years. They're finally making progress and it looks like it will happen but it's been a nightmare (a very boring one for those of us who get the local paper but don't live in Portishead as it's regularly dominated with "more delays to railway line" stories).

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:56 am

All rail lines need to be diesel-free by 2050. Diesel-only trains can be removed from 2040.

I presume that there are exemptions for heritage railways? - In dry summers (rare, I know!) the North York Moors Railway runs ancient diesel engines rather than steam engines to reduce the fire risk on the moors - what would happen there?

Lydia Gwilt wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:08 am

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:56 am

All rail lines need to be diesel-free by 2050. Diesel-only trains can be removed from 2040.

I presume that there are exemptions for heritage railways? - In dry summers (rare, I know!) the North York Moors Railway runs ancient diesel engines rather than steam engines to reduce the fire risk on the moors - what would happen there?

Good question. I don't know - I can't imagine that our current PM, with his fondness for harking back to the days when GREAT BRITISH RAILWAYS all ran on GREAT BRITISH TRAINS which were the ENVY OF THE WORLD and powered by GREAT BRITISH COAL but also sadly happened to be OUT OF DATE by the 60s when British Rail were STILL MANUFACTURING THEM at the same time that Japan was building the BULLET TRAIN, will force them to stop working on heritage lines. Whether there'll still be licences for the main railway is a different matter, I suppose.

Certainly, there's a lot of skriking over the fact that any heritage trains which want to run on the national rail network will have to be fitted with in-cab signalling in the fairly near future, or else they can't go there.

I seem to remember someone having the reverse argument a few years ago. They were proposing expanding bus lanes to allow fast tracks into major cities (well London actually) so that coaches could just whizz in. As it was coach only with no stops, they could increase the speed limit to 70mph+ and reduce the gaps between them. Then actually couple them together. Then run them on rails....

Lydia Gwilt wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:08 am

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:56 am

All rail lines need to be diesel-free by 2050. Diesel-only trains can be removed from 2040.

I presume that there are exemptions for heritage railways? - In dry summers (rare, I know!) the North York Moors Railway runs ancient diesel engines rather than steam engines to reduce the fire risk on the moors - what would happen there?

There won't be any coal to be had by then anyway, it's already getting difficult for model engineers to buy good Welsh anthracite for steam models. I'm sure discrete battery electric traction could be built into the tender to push the locos and trains about without all that smell, smoke and noise, hell remove the coupling gear and they'll run nice and freely. Stick a Thomas the Tank Engine Face on the front and all the tourists will be happy and won't know the difference.

With regard to the OP's question, the clue is in the name.

With 20:20 hindsight Beeching was wrong.

Thanks EPD.

We have a 'railway map of Scotland' on our bathroom wall before they all got DESTROYED and it makes me a bit sad and wistful