"Peter Fox"  wrote:

>I object to the assertion that I am "spouting rubbish again". 


Then please address your comments to the person who made the
assertion.  Clue:  It wasn't me.


>The reasons 
>that I know that there will be no diesel IEP is that there will be an 
>electrification plan announced before long (even Ruth Kelly says this)


Ruth Kelly can say what she wants.  She will be long out of office
before anything she says now can be implemented.


>and that the cost of the diesel IEP will be such that noone in their right mind 
>would want to spend the money; certainly not the leasing companies. 


The diesel IEP won't cost the leasing companies a single penny.  DfT
Rail either guarantees the leasing payments (under the present system
with ROSCOs) or will actually pay them (IEP).  Do keep up.


>There 
>may well be an electric IEP, but this would probaly be just an ordinary EMU.


You wish.  Again.


>I also have other souces which I cannot reveal.


The trouble is, you only listen to "sources" who agree with you.  

Perhaps you listen too much to your own voice?

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
news:to5qc4pmfqrf8omig6c185bbjl5k76i9uo@4ax.com...
> "Peter Fox"  wrote:
>
>>I object to the assertion that I am "spouting rubbish again".
>
>
> Then please address your comments to the person who made the
> assertion.  Clue:  It wasn't me.
>

I know, but I only wanted to make one posting!

>>The reasons
>>that I know that there will be no diesel IEP is that there will be an
>>electrification plan announced before long (even Ruth Kelly says this)
>
>
> Ruth Kelly can say what she wants.  She will be long out of office
> before anything she says now can be implemented.
>
Except that Ruth Kelly is only saying what the civil servants tell her to 
say. So even if she is replaced it will make no difference.

>>and that the cost of the diesel IEP will be such that noone in their right 
>>mind
>>would want to spend the money; certainly not the leasing companies.
>
>
> The diesel IEP won't cost the leasing companies a single penny.  DfT
> Rail either guarantees the leasing payments (under the present system
> with ROSCOs) or will actually pay them (IEP).  Do keep up.
>

It won't happen once DfT realises how much it is going to cost.

>>There may well be an electric IEP, but this would probaly be just an 
>>ordinary EMU.
>
> You wish.  Again.
>
No, I don't wish this. I think a loco-hauled solution would be better.

>>I also have other souces which I cannot reveal.
>
> The trouble is, you only listen to "sources" who agree with you.
>
> Perhaps you listen too much to your own voice?

Pathetic reply. I listen to sources who are in the know.

When will you accept that the status quo cannot be assumed to carry on for 
ever?

PF

"Peter Fox"  wrote:
>"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
>>
>> Ruth Kelly can say what she wants.  She will be long out of office
>> before anything she says now can be implemented.
>>
>Except that Ruth Kelly is only saying what the civil servants tell her to 
>say. So even if she is replaced it will make no difference.


That isn't true.  Civil servants are of necessity cautious and are
certainly not going out on a limb to push electrification when there
is no clear case for it.  There is a willingness to look at it, but
the knee-jerk reaction to rising oil prices is coming from Ministers
and not from civil servants.


>>>and that the cost of the diesel IEP will be such that noone in their right 
>>>mind
>>>would want to spend the money; certainly not the leasing companies.
>>
>>
>> The diesel IEP won't cost the leasing companies a single penny.  DfT
>> Rail either guarantees the leasing payments (under the present system
>> with ROSCOs) or will actually pay them (IEP).  Do keep up.
>>
>
>It won't happen once DfT realises how much it is going to cost.


The headline cost will include all the design and development costs,
all the construction, financing and maintenance costs and all the
risk.  It will be expensive but that is because far more is included
than ever before. 

So on the basis of whole life costs the IEP will be far more
attractive than the headline figure would initially suggest.


>When will you accept that the status quo cannot be assumed to carry on for 
>ever?


I accepted that long ago.  But for there to be change, there has to be
something significantly better, or cheaper.  

As far as electrification goes, it will cost an awful lot of money to
do - especially when compensation to train operators is taken into
account, which it has not been so far - and the financial returns
alone will never be enough to justify the cost.

On CO2 emissions, there is no clear case because there will not be
sufficient sources of renewable and/or nuclear electricity until at
least 2025 to make up the shortfall caused by the closure of all
existing nuclear stations except Sizewell B by 2020.  The claims made
in the infamous Coucher/Shooter letter that power for the electrified
railway could come from renewable sources are, for the foreseeable
future, demonstrably false and highly misleading.

Indeed, there are very major concerns that the installed generating
capacity (of all types) will fall well short of demands for power in
the first half of the next decade, with a high risk of blackouts.  

When the electricity industry was privatised there was no obligation
placed on any of the private companies, generators, grid or
distributors, to ensure a secure supply.  So power stations are being
built and operated only on the basis of whether their owners think
they will be profitable.  

You only have to look at the rate of closure of nuclear capacity and
the lack of new construction of power stations to realise that a huge
gap will quickly develop between capacity and demand.  Nuclear cannot
fill it; neither can wind power.  Given the timescale, it will have to
be coal or gas.  With carbon capture at least two decades away, and
our gas supplies projected to be over 70% dependent on uncertain
Russian supplies, this means yet more CO2 emissions, not less.  This
is probably the largest domestic political and economic problem that
will be faced by the next Government.

Against this background, it would be grossly irresponsible to increase
electricity consumption significantly by electrifying a large
proportion of the railway network.

But trainspotters (and many in the railway industry) have what is
perhaps a unique reputation for wilful ignorance of the world around
them.  An obsession with train numbers and whether they have
pantographs or diesel engines is not enough; there needs to be a
willingness to understand that because of broader and much more
important issues, the time for electrification is not now.

I certainly don't rule it out for the future.  I don't even rule out
electrifying one main line, probably the GWML, and some small infill
schemes in the near future.  But systemwide electrification will have
to wait until the economics, the availability of the power and the
opportunity to lower, rather than raise CO2 emissions all come
together to provide a window of opportunity.  

That window will not arrive until the mid-2020s, when the new nuclear
stations are coming on stream and the "zero-carbon" proportion of UK
power generation begins to go up after 15 years of going down, down,
down thanks to the inevitable closure of the existing nuclear plants.
That will be the time to consider electrifying the system, not before.

Tony Polson wrote:

<blah pretending not to be a trainspotter blah />

> But systemwide electrification will have
> to wait until the economics, the availability of the power and the
> opportunity to lower, rather than raise CO2 emissions all come
> together to provide a window of opportunity.  

But given that nobody is actually suggesting system wide 
electrification, it doesn't matter...



-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

ibilola1@aol.com wrote:

>On Sep 15, 6:46?pm, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Tony Polson wrote:
>>
>> <blah pretending not to be a trainspotter blah />
>>
>> > But systemwide electrification will have
>> > to wait until the economics, the availability of the power and the
>> > opportunity to lower, rather than raise CO2 emissions all come
>> > together to provide a window of opportunity. ?
>>
>> But given that nobody is actually suggesting system wide
>> electrification, it doesn't matter...
>>
>> --
>> Arthur Figgis ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Surrey, UK
>
>Network Rail are considering system wide electrification - there have
>been several articles in recent editions of Modern Railways on this.


I suppose I should thank Arthur Figgis for perfectly illustrating my
point that trainspotters are completely out of touch with reality.

;-)

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
news:g31tc45cb6piv1frng33vdn734icjpodhf@4ax.com...
> "Peter Fox"  wrote:
>>"Tony Polson"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> Ruth Kelly can say what she wants.  She will be long out of office
>>> before anything she says now can be implemented.
>>>
>>Except that Ruth Kelly is only saying what the civil servants tell her to
>>say. So even if she is replaced it will make no difference.
>
>
> That isn't true.  Civil servants are of necessity cautious and are
> certainly not going out on a limb to push electrification when there
> is no clear case for it.

Of course there is.

>>>>and that the cost of the diesel IEP will be such that noone in their 
>>>>right
>>>>mind
>>>>would want to spend the money; certainly not the leasing companies.
>>>
>>>
>>> The diesel IEP won't cost the leasing companies a single penny.  DfT
>>> Rail either guarantees the leasing payments (under the present system
>>> with ROSCOs) or will actually pay them (IEP).  Do keep up.
>>>
>>
>>It won't happen once DfT realises how much it is going to cost.
>
>
> The headline cost will include all the design and development costs,
> all the construction, financing and maintenance costs and all the
> risk.  It will be expensive but that is because far more is included
> than ever before.
>
> So on the basis of whole life costs the IEP will be far more
> attractive than the headline figure would initially suggest.
>
Polson talks so much nonsense that from now on I have decided not to reply 
to any of his postings.  Virtually everything he alleges is wrong.

Peter Fox

Signing of from trying to argue with an idiot.

ibilola1@aol.com wrote:
> On Sep 15, 6:46�pm, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Tony Polson wrote:
>>
>> <blah pretending not to be a trainspotter blah />
>>
>>> But systemwide electrification will have
>>> to wait until the economics, the availability of the power and the
>>> opportunity to lower, rather than raise CO2 emissions all come
>>> together to provide a window of opportunity. �
>> But given that nobody is actually suggesting system wide
>> electrification, it doesn't matter...
>>
>> --
>> Arthur Figgis � � � � � � � Surrey, UK
> 
> Network Rail are considering system wide electrification - there have
> been several articles in recent editions of Modern Railways on this.

Has there really? As in Thurso, Barton-on-Humber, Whitby, Looe, 
Aberystwyth?

Still, I doubt anyone who matters is going to take much notice of 
wibblings of the sort of sad and embittered old man who thinks calling 
someone a trainspotter is a convincing argument.

Polson's platform end spotting posse might be different to others, but I 
thought hardcore anoraks didn't really like trams anyway!

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

Am Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:48:47 UTC,  schrieb Tony Polson 
  auf uk.railway :

> When the electricity industry was privatised there was no obligation
> placed on any of the private companies, generators, grid or
> distributors, to ensure a secure supply.  So power stations are being
> built and operated only on the basis of whether their owners think
> they will be profitable.  

> Against this background, it would be grossly irresponsible to increase
> electricity consumption significantly by electrifying a large
> proportion of the railway network.

  You present a case for a re-nationalisation of the electricity 
generating industry. 


Cheers, 
L.W.

Peter Fox"  wrote:
>"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
>news:g31tc45cb6piv1frng33vdn734icjpodhf@4ax.com...
>> "Peter Fox"  wrote:
>>>"Tony Polson"  wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> Ruth Kelly can say what she wants.  She will be long out of office
>>>> before anything she says now can be implemented.
>>>>
>>>Except that Ruth Kelly is only saying what the civil servants tell her to
>>>say. So even if she is replaced it will make no difference.
>>
>>
>> That isn't true.  Civil servants are of necessity cautious and are
>> certainly not going out on a limb to push electrification when there
>> is no clear case for it.
>
>Of course there is.


In your dreams, it would appear that anything is possible.

Tony Polson wrote:

> 
> In your dreams, it would appear that anything is possible.
> 

Remember, Peter - you are not going to reply ;-)

Charlie

rob_m8200@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 15 Sep, 21:06, "Lüko Willms" <l.wil...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>>  You present a case for a re-nationalisation of the electricity
>>generating industry.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>L.W.
> 
> Perhaps...  but there's no willingness to do so.
> 
> Even if there was willingness, there's no money to do so... it's all
> been spent remember? :)
> 
> And let's not forget that the nationalised CEGB gave us some
> impressive power stations that for every GW of electricity they
> generate, waste another GW of usable heat up the chimney.  Capturing
> the value with district heat networks would have doubled the end-to-
> end efficiency of coal generation.

In what sense is this a "GW of usable heat"?  The heat rejected in the 
condenser is going to be as close to ambeint as is possible.  That's 
going to be too cold to be used to run a hot bath or shower, and if it's 
cold enough outside to want to be running the central heating, chances 
are the steam will be condensing at about the same temperature as (the 
target temperature for) the inside of your house.  I have no idea how 
you propose to use that to actually heat a house, it's far too cold.

As for the exhuast going up the chimney, that is cooled as low as is 
possible before condensation of the water vapour in the exhaust starts 
to kick in.  If there were a practical means of getting that heat out, 
they'd do it in the power station for combustion air pre-heating.

Take a look at a second law analysis of a CEGB big steam plant, and 
you'll see that the lost work associated with the exhaust and condenser 
is minute.  The big losses are in the combustion process and the boiler. 
  These could not be addressed as long as the fuel was coal, and it took 
the rise of natural gas as a fuel to make the combined cycle practical.

Robin

Am Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:09:39 UTC,  schrieb "R.C. Payne" 
  auf uk.railway :

> > impressive power stations that for every GW of electricity they
> > generate, waste another GW of usable heat up the chimney.  Capturing
> > the value with district heat networks would have doubled the end-to-
> > end efficiency of coal generation.
> 
> In what sense is this a "GW of usable heat"?  T

  This reminds me of what I saw at the farm of a cousin of mine: they 
use their cows' milk to heat the water for shower and bath. The milk 
comes body-warm from the udder, but has to be stored at 7° until the 
dairy comes to emtpy the tank (once a week, I believe). Instead of 
filling the milk at body temperature into the tank, and requiring more
energy to cool it down and keep the required temperature, the milk is 
led thru an heat exchanger, giving the heat to the water and cooling 
the milk. 

  Lots of things like that can be done to save energy, to use 
otherwise wasted energy in a different way. 

  Now, I tell this not to suggest that all trains on Great Britain 
could be moved by warm milk, of course... 


Cheers, 
L.W.

On 16/09/08 16:09, Lüko Willms wrote:
>   This reminds me of what I saw at the farm of a cousin of mine: they 
> use their cows' milk to heat the water for shower and bath. The milk 
> comes body-warm from the udder, but has to be stored at 7° until the 
> dairy comes to emtpy the tank (once a week, I believe).

It's almost certainly every day. Unpasteurised milk will go off in much
less than a week.

Am Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:57:39 UTC,  schrieb Roger Lynn 
  auf uk.railway :

> >   This reminds me of what I saw at the farm of a cousin of mine: they 
> > use their cows' milk to heat the water for shower and bath. The milk 
> > comes body-warm from the udder, but has to be stored at 7° until the 
> > dairy comes to emtpy the tank (once a week, I believe).

> It's almost certainly every day. Unpasteurised milk will go off in much
> less than a week.

  Thanks for asking ... 

  I just called to get the info -- the diary truck comes every other 
day to empty the milk tank. It is just to avoid a deterioration of the
milk it has to be kept cool at 7 °C all the time. 


Cheers, 
L.W.