Philip Haigh
PHILIP HAIGH considers what industry projects are best placed to reduce carbon emissions… and the waiting game that is delaying progress
Electrification and decarbonisation.
AT first glance, the UK Government’s announcement of higher carbon reduction targets and its admission that it’s cutting the rail enhancements budget sit uneasily together. Surely rail has a key role in helping to reduce carbon emissions?
Within its own boundary, rail could be more carbon friendly. Switching more services from diesel to electric certainly helps cut rail carbon emissions - an electric train emits around a quarter of the carbon of a diesel.
But take a wider perspective and a different picture emerges. Transport accounts for 33% of UK carbon emissions. And within transport, government figures show rail only in the category of ‘Other’, with 5%. Buses have their own category on 3%, so it’s safe to assume that rail’s emissions are very low - perhaps a little over 1% of the UK total.
Electrification’s environmental benefits have been known for years. When Viscount Weir wrote in the Report of the Committee on Main Line Railway Electrification that “in large towns the abolition of locomotive smoke would be of considerable benefit to those living near the railway”, the year was 1931.
When British Rail and the Department of Transport published their Review of Main Line Electrification in 1981, they reckoned that extensive electrification would halve emissions of carbon monoxide (it didn’t mention carbon dioxide).
Neither report, nor the many others over the years, has prompted the government to commit to widespread electrification. Instead, it has authorised major lines on an individual basis - the West Coast in the 1960s, the East Coast in the 1980s, and the Great Western in the 2010s.
Authorisation has always been driven by costs. And in this context, Network Rail’s mishandling of the Great Western project (aided and abetted by the Department for Transport) caused considerable harm to electrification’s cause.
Wiring railways and introducing electric trains brings many advantages. The trains themselves are cheaper to buy, cheaper to run, cheaper to maintain, and can deliver the service with a smaller fleet than with diesels. Their better acceleration and braking can deliver greater capacity, particularly on routes with more stations. And their electricity can come from many sources, as recent trials with solar panels have shown.
In Scotland, the recent switch from diesel to electric in the Central Belt led to a capacity increase of 44% when Class 385s took over from diesels such as Class 170s. Carbon emissions fell by 69%, and now 76% of rail passenger journeys and 45% of rail freight journeys in Scotland are electrified.
But is this enough to swing the pendulum towards more electrification? Or will the DfT take the view of former Rail Director General Mike Mitchell, in 2007, when he wrote: “Selfpowered trains are inherently more flexible and although more complex and less reliable in themselves, simplify the railway as a system.”
Mitchell added - and this was before DfT authorised Great Western wiring and so before its costs rocketed - in his letter to Network Rail and the Association of Train Operating Companies (now the Rail Delivery Group): “The best way to improve the case for electrification is by reducing costs.”
That’s as true today as it was then. Unfortunately, we will not know whether the railway and DfT has learnt the lessons of Great Western until government authorises more schemes to convert lines from diesel to electric - although more recent projects in Scotland tend to suggest the railway is making progress.
It seems to me that if electrification is to be the way forward, then it can’t hang its hopes on decarbonisation. For a multi-billion-pound price tag, rail could cut its share of UK carbon emissions from a little over 1% to a little under 1%. That’s not good value. And if that isn’t, then the case for hydrogen is weaker still.
There is one major rail electrification project under way - and that’s High Speed 2, which will erect wires as it builds.
In creating more capacity between London and Birmingham with its first phase, HS2
“It seems to me that if electrification is to be the way forward, then it can’t hang its hopes on decarbonisation. For a multi-billion-pound price tag, rail could cut its share of UK carbon emissions from a little over 1% to a little under 1%. That’s not good value.”
should tempt passengers from cars, and by taking existing rail passengers it can create space for more freight services. This freight space can take lorries from the roads and thus cut carbon emissions in the long term. But there’s a but - and that’s if those emptier roads then tempt traffic to fill them.
In providing this space, government should look closely at how to make freight electric.
As things stand, rail freight remains largely reliant on diesel power. Companies such as DB Cargo have electric locomotives rotting in store. GB Railfreight is modernising old Class 56 diesel locomotives to give them new life, but still as diesels. Freight suffers from short gaps in the electric network that condemn their trains to be diesel-hauled throughout, yet there’s little incentive to change this.
Parliament is now discussing the first part of HS2’s second phase. This extends the line from the West Midlands to Crewe, before MPs and peers turn their attention to the CreweManchester section. This focus on the western leg of Phase 2 has spooked those wanting to see progress with the eastern leg to Sheffield and Leeds, including a station near Toton to serve the East Midlands.
It prompted Andrew Adonis (the Transport Secretary who launched HS2 over a decade ago) to call for a legal commitment from the Government to build the eastern leg.
In the House of Lords on November 30, he said: “If we just build a high-speed line up to Manchester and do not build a new railway up to Sheffield and Leeds and connecting on to the East Coast Main Line, then this would be the equivalent of the Victorians building a railway up to Manchester but leaving the canals to serve Sheffield and Leeds.
“It is fundamental to the project that it serves both halves of the country, and the great danger at the moment is that the Government are on track to cancelling or severely delaying the eastern part of the project.”
Adonis found support from several other peers - including another former Transport Secretary Lord McLoughlin, who said of HS2: “It is only the start of the project of modernising our railway network. I find it ironic that I can get a high-speed train from London to Paris or Brussels, but not to Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Edinburgh or Glasgow. That is the dream - we have to ensure that future generations get their own high-speed rail.”
Adonis did not get his legal commitment from government. Transport Minister Baroness Vere would not commit now to the eastern leg. She explained: “The Prime Minister has been very clear that the Government’s plans for the HS2 eastern leg will be set out in the Integrated Rail Plan, and that this will be laid before Parliament.”
This Integrated Rail Plan depends in turn on the National Infrastructure Commission’s assessment of what the East Midlands and the North needs from rail.
The NIC’s interim report last July promised publication of the final report in November. When it sees the light of day, it should cover the scoping, phasing and sequencing of HS2 Phase 2b, Northern Powerhouse Rail and Midlands Engine Rail, options for redeveloping Manchester Piccadilly, the trans-Pennine route upgrade, and improvements to existing lines including the Midland and East Coast Main Lines.
Transport for the North recently agreed what proposals to send to government for a new line across the Pennines. It said little other than it planned a new line between Liverpool and Manchester via the centre of Warrington and from Manchester to Leeds via the centre of Bradford, as well as significant improvements to the Hope Valley route, electrification of lines from Leeds to Sheffield and Hull, and East Coast Main Line upgrades from Leeds to York (including restoration of the Leamside Line).
In the absence of more detail, an obscure group called Network North used the gap to promote its own scheme, which it claims does not require HS2 to be built. Instead, there would be two high-speed lines across the Pennines.
One would run from Liverpool under central Manchester and along the Woodhead corridor to a triangular junction near Penistone, to split towards Leeds and Sheffield Victoria where it would build a new station. A second high-speed line would run from Rochdale to Halifax.
In addition, it would build a roll on-roll off freight line to carry lorries between the M60 at Bredbury (Manchester) and the M1 at Tinsley (Sheffield). It would build a new line across Bradford on a viaduct which it claims will cross the city’s Westfield shopping centre at second floor level. And all for £40 billion with the high-speed elements built within ten years.
Frankly, it’s hard to take this one seriously. Social media reaction that I saw chiefly consisted of questions about access to crayons. Network North’s proposals come very late in the day and provide opportunity for ‘what about’ questions from those who’d rather not see any investment.
So, as is too often the case, we’re waiting. Waiting for DfT’s delayed decarbonisation report… waiting for the NIC’s delayed report into northern rail options… and waiting for the DfT’s integrated plan. Happy Christmas!