Return to Archive -by date - by topic.

INFORMED SOURCES December 2006

ORR – now its sustainable development

Brace yourselves as ORR tries to rationalise commonsense – entrancing us with some top grade tosh in the process

This column prides itself on being ahead of the news. But even before Informed Sources existed I was setting the agenda for the next century (such modesty – Ed). For example in Modern Railways 30 years ago to this very month there was an article ‘MagLev – a working technology looking for an application'.

As for sustainable development, in the April 1977 Modern Railways, the subject of the Rail Technology Feature was ‘Energy conservation: a matter of perspective'. And rereading it was reminder that there is little new under the sun.

There were lots of tables (no change there, then: Ed) and some observations still relevant today. For example, why had the Advanced Passenger Train – as always, due to enter service ‘next year' - been slowed from 150mile/h to 125 mile/h? Because calculations showed that while the higher speed would cut the planned 4hr 5min journey time by 11 min, it would be at the cost of using 27% more energy.

One of the Tables is reprinted below, showing just how many people you could really pack into a range of Intercity trains if the seating were to road express coach density. I offer that to DfT Rail as a way out of the current capacity crisis. The howler is left uncorrected since it flatters my favourite locomotive..

Table 1

Energy consumption and seating 1977

*Normal road motor coach seat density

Ever the optimist I ended, ‘Certainly, it will be a long time before the stickers now appearing on Southern main line trains asking passengers to save energy by turning off reading lights have to be taken seriously'.

Regulation

In those days, improving energy efficiency on the railways was engineering led. Now it is down to regulation and contracts - if the consultation document published by the Office of Rail Regulation in October is anything to go by.

Its subject is the delivery of ORR's sustainable development and environmental duties. The paper covers the current situation and considers a number of proposals for carrying out these duties more effectively

Introducing the document ORR Chief Executive, Bill Emery, says that while rail has traditionally been regarded as an environmentally friendly mode of transport, ‘it has never been more important to ensure that the industry continues to contribute positively towards sustainable development'.

Dogma

We then get into north-Korean style dogma. If you think that sustainable development is mainly about conserving energy supplies and trying to halt global warming, then think again.

First of all, we have the The Five Guiding Principles stated within the UK governments Sustainable Development Strategy. These are:

1. Living within environmental limits

2. Ensuring a strong, healthy and just society

3. Achieving a sustainable economy

4. Promoting good governance

5. Using sound science responsibly.

Principle 5 is one of those statements where the value can be tested by seeing if the opposite makes sense. So how does ‘using unsound engineering irresponsibly' stand up? Quite.

And what an opportunity for the railways to join that well known eco-freak Michael O'Leary of Ryanair in ensuring a just society. Mr O'Leary has proposed reducing emissions per seat of aircraft by getting rid of business class and flat beds and putting everyone into economy. Table 1 above refers

Now it's time call on Aircraftsman Shaw. In taking the Five Guding Principles forward ORR will evaluate performance in terms of the Three Pillars (I'm not making this up!) of sustainable development . The ‘pillars' group issues under the headings environmental, economic and social.

  Table 2: The three pillars of Sustainable Development

While I am finding it hard to take this seriously, it is interesting to note that the concept of journey time per kilometre, which seemed a bit odd back in 1977, is now part of the Second Pillar of Sustainable Development. It is, of course, the inverse of Gerry Fiennes ‘vitesse commerciale'. The trouble is you need to work to two decimal places to make it meaningful

Since this consultation document is asking people what ORR should be doing the office benchmarked itself against a peer group, included the Civil Aviation Authority, OFWAT, the International Union of Railways and the US Federal Railroad Administration. When bencharked on nine measure including climate change, social impact and sustainable economic development, ORR had the second worst record after Education.

Next?

So, what's to be done? Well, in delivering the sustainable development agenda ORR says its specific aims are:

*ensuring that the railway industry has a better understanding of its sustainable development performance and the way in which it is measured.

*encouraging the efficient development and improvement to sustainable development;

*promoting the application of best practice principles across the industry;

*ensuring that ORR itself adopts policies and practices, ‘so far as practicable', that will further the UK 's sustainable development strategy.

Unfortunately ORR's ability to influence each of the Five Guiding Principles can, in practice, be constrained by its legal obligations and statutory duties as economic and safety regulator.

But, thankfully, having said all the right things, ORR eventually gets down to a number of specific examples of cost reflective charges providing ‘some incentives to better environmental decision-making'. The two examples quotedm electric current for traction and variable usage charges, will be familiar to readers.

EC4T is one of three components of the total traction electricity charge payable by each train operator and, says ORR, could be used to encourage more efficient energy use. In an ideal railway, each train would meter its own consumption, but currently modelled consumption rates are used to determine an initial charge. This is then adjusted (known as the “wash-up” process) to reflect the difference between the modelled and actual consumption in each Network Rail region.

Where one operator runs most or all of the electrified services in a region, the actual consumption can be determined with some accuracy and there is a direct financial incentive to use electricity efficiently. But in many regions several train operators run, notably the Southern.

According to ORR, unless consumption is metered, should one train operator become more energy efficient, the benefit is shared through the wash-up process. In other words, if South Eastern got all its Electrostars regenerating, South Western, with its non-regenerative Desiros would get some of the benefit for free.

Talking of regenerative braking, where trains have this capability, the current structure of traction electricity charging applies a flat discount of 16.5% to the overall traction electricity charge. This provides a financial

incentive to specify regen', but ORR is concerned that a blanket discount may not reflect the actual savings achieved. Receptivity, the ability to accept regenerated current, varies with time and location across the network.

So the obvious answer is to stop faffing around with artificial constructs and bring in metering, pronto. Or is that too simplistic?

Usage

Another old favourite of this column is the variable usage charge within the track Access Agreement. This is intended to recover Network Rail's additional costs generated by train operation. All types of traction and rolling stock have a charge per km based on various factors such as axle load and suspension design.

Table 3. Comparison of variable track access charges

ORR claims that these charges, ‘particularly the weight of the vehicle', provide an incentive to train operators, their suppliers and funders, to consider energy efficient and more generally environmentally- favourable vehicle types. Table 3 gives this claim the lie, with yet another artificial construct having had no effect whatsoever on the weight of, in this case, DMUs.

ORR concedes that the current incentives framework and access charges provide ‘limited positive signals to encourage better environmental decision-making'. However, it is not aware of any current provisions that actually act as a ‘direct obstacle to positive environmental decisions being made'.

Any readers who know different should send details of ‘ any areas where the current incentives framework or structure of access charges prevent decisions being made that would encourage sustainable development' to ORR.

Study

Now you and I might think that there was no shortage of technical papers on the effects of train weight. But, just to be sure, ORR is asking for an analysis of possible benefits and known costs of heavier trains.

This appraisal should take account of all resulting costs. These may exceed those incurred by Network Rail and recovered though the traction electricity and variable usage charge if the environmental impact of heavier vehicles is included.

Talk about quantifying the bloomin' obvious. But when the work is done financial incentives could be introduced to encourage lighter vehicles. I'm not sure what the financial incentives were back in 1969 when British Rail Derby designed the Mk 3 coach – then the cheapest and lightest air conditioned coach in Europe .

And further work would be needed on the application of such new incentives to existing vehicles. The mind boggles at the thought of a retrospective Weight Improvement Programme on, say, a Mk 4 coach.

Sorry about all this levity about what is a serous subject. But if ORR is contemplating a mission statement, can I suggest ‘building a better artificial construct?'

Continues.........