Written evidence submitted by West Yorkshire Combined Authority (TFF0020)

Introduction – About the Combined Authority:

The West Yorkshire Combined Authority serves a £64.6 billion economy and serves a population of three million.  Around 3.6 million journeys are made on the West Yorkshire public transport network each week and the authority is planning to invest £155 million in transport projects this year. The rail network plays a key role in ensuring the local population can access jobs, education and services efficiently and in a sustainable manner, underlined by strong growth in passenger demand sustained for over a decade.  However, after decades of limited investment it now requires significant upgrading to enable it to fulfil this role fully and not act as a brake on the sustainable development of the city region.  The city of Leeds itself has been identified as having some of the highest levels of air pollution in Europe[1] – largely attributable to road traffic. In addition 16.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide were emitted across the City Region in 2015. To reduce these emissions the region adopted an Energy Strategy and Delivery Plan (ESDP), which aims to create a zero-carbon energy economy.  It is also exploring establishing a carbon reduction target in line with the international Paris Climate  Agreement. Many local partners have also recently declared a climate emergency. However, even if we carried out all of the actions in our regional and local energy strategies and plans, we will still need to do more to achieve zero net emissions by 2050, or sooner. Urgent action to decarbonise all sectors, including transport, is now required.

1        What role rail decarbonisation can make to the Government’s wider commitments on air quality to 2040:

1.1   It is important to distinguish between decarbonisation (the elimination of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gas” emissions, for the purposes of mitigating climate change) and the imperative of improving air quality. However, both must be critical policy priorities, and in practice interventions whose primary purpose is to decarbonise rail will also bring benefits in terms of local air quality concerns.  Rail can contribute to improved air quality overall by:

• Reducing rail’s own direct emissions – principally by the adoption of more energy-efficient and/or lower-polluting means of traction; and
• Providing a cost-effective and attractive means of transport that promotes modal shift from more polluting modes, such as car and aviation. 

The second of these mechanisms reflects the fact that rail transport, even when powered by conventional diesel engines, is significantly more energy-efficient than the other modes mentioned, and therefore any modal shift towards rail can be expected to bring air-quality benefits at the level of, for example, a city or region.  However, particularly in the North there are serious concerns at local air-quality blackspots around stations, because not only is rail electrification limited, but much of the rolling-stock, especially on the regional network, is composed of diesel trains from the 1980s which do not approach modern emissions standards.  Under current plans, these relatively polluting units will remain until at least the mid-2020s. 

1.2   The converse situation underlines the benefits of sustained investment in modernising the railway: On the Leeds North-West network (the lines to Bradford Forster Square, Skipton and Ilkley), the 1990s saw a comprehensive route modernisation which involved electrification, resignalling and speed increases, followed by attractive new electric trains.  The result has not only introduced zero-emissions trains on these routes into Leeds, but has achieved a step-change shift from car travel such that modal shares of 75-85%[2] are now typical for commuting into Leeds from these corridors – and where new mobility is induced by the fast, frequent and reliable connectivity, this is by definition utilising more sustainable transport. 

1.3   While the precise degree to which electric railways save carbon emissions in comparison to diesel operation varies with the extent to which electricity generation is decarbonised, even the current electricity generation mix shows an overwhelming direct carbon emissions benefit from electrification[3].  However, the overall benefits are understated by this, to the extent that electric trains are cheaper to purchase, operate and maintain, and they therefore lower the costs of train operation, whilst generally providing higher performance than alternatives.  Taken together, this means that the train service can at acceptable cost be rendered more attractive to passengers (and additional capacity provided), and therefore modal shift and sustainable mobility encouraged.  As such, the overall decarbonisation benefits are likely to be significantly greater than the pure substitution of an electric train for a diesel would suggest. 

1.4   It can therefore be concluded that if rail decarbonisation includes a programme of electrification of railways serving the main urban areas, this will correlate strongly with a contribution to improving air quality in those cities, by both direct and indirect means.  Alternative approaches to future rail traction, which are currently under consideration, are discussed later in this submission, but in the context of this question it is relevant to note that there is little evidence that they would be as effective as electrification on busy regional and interurban routes, in terms of combining direct emissions reductions with cost-effective operation and the development of the more attractive train services that bring modal shift. 

2        Whether there is adequate financial and other support from the Government for the development of alternatively fuelled rolling stock:

2.1   Government financial support for the move to post-carbon and low-pollution transport needs, to maximise its impacts, to take a number of differently but complementary forms, such as:

1. Direct investment within the railway itself – encompassing both infrastructure and rolling-stock, and including, where appropriate, the consideration of revenue-support (i.e. subsidy) to compensate where low-polluting and carbon-free traction sources are at present entail higher operating costs than their conventional alternatives;
2. Investment in the wider infrastructure outside the transport network but relevant to its ability to move beyond carbon and polluting traction methods: examples include shifting the electricity generation mix and potentially the development of the appropriate types of hydrogen infrastructure;
3. Beyond rail, fiscal measures (tax and subsidy) that alter the incentives as between different modes in order to favour more sustainable forms of transport (active modes, bus, tram, and rail) over the less so (car and air). 

2.2   In the context of this question, clearly it is the first category that is the most immediately relevant – but it cannot be considered without the second, and the third will be critical to ensure ultimate success in terms of the imperatives as regards climate change and air quality. 

2.3   The development of “alternatively-fuelled” rolling stock must be a means to an end.  The decarbonisation of, and elimination of air pollution from, rail transport is the immediate end, but it is essential not to lose sight of the basics of operating a railway: the railway must be cost-efficient and attractive to the passenger.  From this flow the imperatives that the traction methods adopted must be those which enable the railway to function better.  This includes the physical performance of the trains, their capacity for passengers (or power to move freight), the attractiveness of their passenger ambience, their reliability, the costs of their procurement, maintenance costs of train and infrastructure – and their environmental sustainability.  Financial and other support from Government must be prioritised in this context and be evidence-based – rather than driven by political expediency, short-term investment constraints, or the attractions of technologies that are unlikely to have more than niche applications. 

2.4   In the next sections we explore the principal technologies and the evidence supporting our view that Government should be much more actively pursuing investment in rail electrification. 

3        How the industry is responding to the challenge of a carbon-free transport future by 2040 and developing technologies to achieve that:

3.1   So far, the rail industry has responded in a piecemeal and unconvincing fashion that, arguably, reflects its fragmented nature and lack of a strategic “controlling mind” and clear objectives – and which risks diluting the natural advantages that rail has over other modes in moving towards a carbon-free future.  Those fundamental advantages must not be forgotten or underestimated in a rush towards alternative technologies: for over 100 years, rail has, almost uniquely, had the ability to be powered directly by electricity without the need for storage devices such as batteries or fuel cells – and this technology also remains acknowledged worldwide to be the most cost-effective way to run a high-efficiency, high-performing and attractive railway.  While electrification comes at a significant one-off capital cost, the payoffs on busy railways are overwhelming in the form of reduced operating costs; reduced train maintenance; higher train availability and reliability (therefore smaller fleets); higher performance in terms of acceleration and speed on gradients; reduced weight and therefore lower track maintenance and energy costs (a benefit heightened by electric trains’ ability to return current to the system when braking and descending gradients); and lower noise levels.  This is alongside the ability to operate from renewable and/or low-/zero-carbon power sources (with an inherent flexibility to adapt to changes in future energy policy) and the elimination of local air pollution.  Electric trains are also cheaper to procure than diesels (significantly cheaper than “bi-modes”) – an advantage which at present is heightened by there being a national surplus of existing electric units, many of high quality and recent construction, made redundant by new-build fleets in the South-East. 

3.2   In this context, the industry’s recent failures in delivering electrification, and Government’s reaction to these, have been deeply concerning.  The lack of a programme of electrification is a particular concern in the North of England, where sustained underinvestment has left the region with a railway that is unattractive and inefficient, locking in higher operating costs and lower revenues than not only our European peers but in comparison to elsewhere in Britain.  It is not only the contrast with London and the South-East that is stark: Scotland is enjoying the fruits of a coordinated and sustained rolling programme of mainline and suburban electrification, as a result of which there are now no fewer than four electrified routes between Glasgow and Edinburgh; there is not one between Manchester and Leeds, nor thus far any Government commitment to provide one.  The roots of Network Rail’s failures, most particularly on the Great Western and in the North-West of England, lie in failures of planning, design and project management, which are outside the scope of this submission.  However, these have now been generally recognised[4] – and, hearteningly if belatedly, there are clear signs that progress is being made in tackling those issues such that electrification can once again be delivered at reasonable cost and within acceptable timescales.  It is now over to Government to take the right decisions to support the industry by affirming a long-term rolling programme of rail electrification rather than the “boom and bust” approach that has characterised the post-privatisation era and has itself contributed to the recent failures of delivery.  Such a strategy would be welcomed by the supply industry and would drive down costs and delivery uncertainty – while also supporting the development of high-technology knowledge-intensive jobs and skills. There is a strong case for that rolling programme to have a particular focus on rebalancing the “electrification gap” by favouring the North of England[5].

3.3   One unfortunate consequence of the lack of a “joined-up” national strategy for electrification has been that it has forced operators to order large fleets of “bi-modal” (a.k.a. electro-diesel or hybrid) trains.  These trains, including the majority of the large IEP fleet ordered by Government itself, are expensive to procure, operate and maintain, are heavy (and therefore energy-inefficient and harsh on tracks), do not as yet have a proven reliability record, and in some cases are slower than diesel-only trains produced in the 1970s. 

3.4   Other potential alternatives to electrification are discussed in the next section. 

4        What challenges there are to deploying alternatively fuelled rolling stock on the GB rail network, particularly given issues with standards and loading gauge:

4.1   The advantages of “traditional” electrification are set out above.  Electrification poses technical and practical challenges in terms, above all, of the need to provide physical space for the overhead lines at acceptable clearances; this generally involves the raising of bridges and other structures, and/or the lowering of tracks, though other technologies are available to reduce the need to do this. It should however be pointed out that on many trunk routes such as the Trans-Pennine mainline between Manchester and Hull / York there is in any event a need to change the structure (loading) gauge in order to allow the routes to be used by modern freight trains (in particular, full-size containers on standard wagons) and so allow modal shift from road freight.  It is right and encouraging that recent electrification projects have shown an increased willingness in the industry to challenge standards that may not be appropriate in terms of, for example, electrical clearances – this can have significant cost impacts. 

4.2   Alternative traction technologies include the following[6]:

4.2.1         Diesel.  For more than half a century the default mode of traction where electrification is not provided, diesel has historically prospered on rail.  This reflects the energy-density of its fuel and its relatively low cost, alongside the flexibility of diesel and its simplicity relative to modes other than “straight electric” traction.  A diesel train even now remains in general significantly more energy- and carbon-efficient than any non-rail source of motorised land transport.  However, clearly the imperatives relating to climate change and air quality, as well as long-term energy security, have rightly led to a questioning of diesel’s long-term role on the railway.  The worldwide evidence is overwhelming that on densely-trafficked lines, reliance on diesel traction is inefficient and anachronistic.  However, on current technology, it is not realistic to envisage the full elimination of diesel trains in the foreseeable future.  This is because (a) the backlog of electrification is such that it does not appear realistic to envisage the full conversion of the remaining non-electric network to electric traction within the short-to-medium term; (b) there would appear to be overwhelming environmental, social and economic policy arguments against any proposal to close rail lines that are not priorities for electrification; and (c) other technologies are currently not yet in a position to provide a satisfactory replacement for diesel on such lines. 

4.2.2         Electro-diesel (bi-modal, hybrid).  The issues with these are discussed above.  The main current alternatives to bi-modal trains, to minimise diesel running “under the wires”, include altering service patterns such that passengers change trains where electrification ends (which may be inconvenient but will be appropriate in some cases), and the use of locomotives (either a diesel locomotive to haul an electric train where needed, or the use of hauled coaches, with a change of locomotive at the interface point).  Clearly the long-term alternative is however the extension of electrification to cover the full length of the main service groups.

4.2.3         Hydrogen fuel cells.  While having the advantage of zero emissions at the point of use (the train) and the ability to derive hydrogen from renewable electricity, there are significant disadvantages and challenges to its use as a form of rail traction.  The first significant issue is the low energy-density of hydrogen fuel-cells; while lighter than batteries, they require large amounts of space – for example, the proposed Eversholt “321 Breeze” train will provide two coaches’ capacity in a three-car unit, most of the balance being required for the storage of the fuel cells and their associated equipment.  This is a significant issue on many local lines where platform lengths are at a premium, and implies poor energy-efficiency in terms of dead weight.  It is however likely that new and purpose-built rolling-stock would reduce this problem.  More intractable is the issue of the fuel source itself: the production of hydrogen by either of the principal means currently available is energy-intensive to the extent that the overall efficiency of the energy vector from power station to train is a little over 30%, as against over 80% for conventional electrification[7].  Transporting hydrogen to the point of use (trains’ fuelling-points) adds a further challenge.  Such concerns are clearly heightened where the electricity is not sourced from clean and renewable generation.  There are however instances where hydrogen is produced as a byproduct of other industrial processes, and in such cases the arguments for hydrogen trains having a role will be stronger; however, even in this situation the hydrogen fuel needs to be processed (“cleaned”) to make it suitable for use, requiring additional energy input.  It follows that hydrogen trains could well have a role in areas of the network close to sites where hydrogen is so produced and the trains can be deployed on low-density lines where train performance and platform lengths are not significant concerns.  However, it would be misguided to consider that hydrogen is likely to be in a position to take over the bulk of duties currently covered by diesel trains. 

4.2.4         Hydrogen – alternative uses.  The above comments are not intended to suggest that hydrogen technology could not be relevant to future rail transport on a wider basis.  In particular, there appears to be scope for hydrogen to be used as a means of storing energy produced by renewable electricity generation, whose variable supply rates do not necessarily match peaks and troughs of demand.  In turn this offers the promise of overcoming one of the main hurdles to renewable energy sources forming the baseload generation capacity.  Against a background of rail electrification, there is an apparent synergy with the development of such an infrastructure.  In this context, the Combined Authority’s ESDP includes commitments to explore the role of Hydrogen as a clean point-source of energy for heating and transport.  We are currently working in collaboration with Northern Gas Networks, Tees Valley Combined Authority and Leeds City Council to explore these roles – focussing on heating and transport.  More generally, the North is home to two of the UK’s leading Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) projects, Teesside Collective and the Liverpool-Manchester Hydrogen Cluster. Both of these projects have the potential not only to revolutionise the North’s industrial base, but also significantly to decarbonise homes and transport through the production of low-cost low-carbon hydrogen. However, for hydrogen to be considered a credible cleaner energy source in heating or transport sectors, there is a need for the government to publish clear and consistent policy to take CCS forward and to explore support for renewable hydrogen generation.

4.2.5         Batteries. Experiments are also proceeding at present with the increased use of batteries to power trains, especially small railcars for branchline use.  This is nothing new; in Germany in particular such units were used successfully from the early 20th century until the 1990s.  Traditionally the main disadvantages have been high weight, limited passenger capacity, the limited range and need to recharge batteries during the daily duty cycle, and maintenance costs at least similar to diesel units.  They also require bespoke charging infrastructure.  However, battery technology has made major advances in recent years; this has mitigated those disadvantages to a fairly significant extent.  Nonetheless, the energy-intensity of batteries on the market or anticipated in the near future is an order of magnitude less than the equivalent for diesel traction, meaning that these concerns remain significant factors limiting the realistic scope for battery trains to replace diesel.  It is most unlikely to be realistic to envisage battery traction replacing standard electrification on the types of lines for which the latter has historically been favoured: those with dense traffic, mixed train types, frequent stops, demanding schedules and/or steep gradients.  As against this, as battery technology improves, it is realistic to envisage a lightweight unit being a credible option for rural branchlines with low traffic densities and modest operating speeds.  It is also possible that some situations will justify a hybrid battery / electric train, which operates on standard overhead equipment for the majority of its journey, whilst also charging the battery to enable the train to cover a short non-electrified stretch on battery power.  The savings as against “infill” electrification of the non-electrified section would need to be balanced against the need to use non-standard, higher-cost and heavier rolling-stock (transporting the weight of the batteries over the long sections of route when the train is in “pure electric” mode). This militates in favour of battery-hybrid technology being applied where a short branch with modest traffic levels has through services to a mainline destination, and conventional electrification of the branch would trigger, for example, an additional power feed.  Recent research has confirmed[8] that for mainlines where standard electrification is under consideration, the costs of providing gauge-clearance under structures like bridges to allow electrification are likely to be outweighed by the costs, and the operating inconvenience, of the proposed alternative of “discontinuous electrification” where trains would switch to batteries or a diesel engine to bridge the gap.  Finally, while battery production has increased in scale greatly in recent years and is likely to continue to do so, driven by the consumer technology and automotive sectors, there remain significant environmental concerns in relation to the production of batteries (including the requirements for rare elements) and their ultimate disposal or recycling.  As such, as with hydrogen trains, the evidence suggests that batteries for primary rail traction will play a significant role only in fairly circumscribed situations . 

4.2.6         Other technologies.  Useful experiments have taken place, and should continue to be supported, to investigate further alternatives with potential for traction use.  These include energy storage systems typically used to supplement another power source and minimise energy use and emissions (such as flywheels linked to a small gas engine on the Parry People Mover, or super-capacitors linked, in a comparable manner to batteries, with conventional electric power in trams).  While these technologies have merit, so far they have in common that they are for niche, typically low-density and low-speed, duties, and none should be considered a serious alternative to electrification for the core network. 

4.3   In this context, whilst well-intentioned, it is submitted that the recent ministerial announcement that by 2040 there should be no more “diesel-only” trains on the rail network would not lead to the best decisions being made, for the following reasons:

1. An electro-diesel “bi-modal” train is, as set out above, likely to be less efficient and costlier, and when on diesel power to produce higher emissions, than a diesel train;
2. Even with an ambitious programme of electrification as we would advocate, realistically some routes are unlikely to be electrified by 2040, even in part; and
3. None of the currently available alternatives to diesel and electric traction is likely in the foreseeable future to be capable of taking over all the duties currently demanded of the diesel fleet.

4.4   It follows that a balanced rail traction policy with sustainability and efficiency at its heart should include the following elements:

(a)    Ensuring that rail overall is an attractive proposition to the passenger and freight customer, such that modal shift is encouraged and new mobility attracted to sustainable modes;

(b)    A consistent and sustained rolling programme of rail electrification based on proven technologies and focusing on the busiest main and suburban lines;

(c)     Maintaining a diesel fleet sufficient to ensure that attractive services can be maintained and developed on lines not yet electrified; and

(d)    Continuing research into, and the application of, technologies that can reduce reliance on diesel for less busy, particularly rural, railways – recognising that such routes are likely to offer the greatest prospects for hydrogen and/or battery power. 

5        What passenger benefits alternatively fuelled rolling stock could provide:

5.1   The passenger benefits of a train using a given form of traction primarily arise indirectly. In simplistic terms, it could be argued that the passenger does not care whether a train is powered by diesel engines, electricity or hydrogen fuel-cells.  This is not strictly correct, in that where multiple units (railcars) are used, a better passenger ambience can be achieved by an electric unit than with underfloor diesel engines.  Less directly, the superior power and performance characteristics of an electric train can be translated into a faster and so more attractive service. 

5.2   The important aspect, however, of this question is rather that the selection of the most appropriate energy source for a railway enables it to be operated in an efficient, reliable and environmentally sustainable manner; therefore the railway itself becomes more effective at “being a railway”. In this sense, the prime passenger benefits are indirect – but no less real and important for that.  In other words, an electric railway represents the most efficient way in most cases to provide the passenger benefits that an effective railway provides. 

5.3   The alternative forms of traction discussed above could, if applied to the right situations, emulate some of the passenger benefits provided by electric traction, provided they can be implemented without sacrificing cost-effectiveness or reliability.  For example, a unit powered by hydrogen fuel cells or batteries and operating a rural branch would be likely to be quieter and smoother for the passenger than a diesel unit, and may potentially offer better low-speed acceleration through the benefits of capturing and reusing braking energy.

6        Whether alternatively fuelled rolling stock would be cost effective compared to EMUs over a 25-40 year life-cycle:

6.1   At present, it is clear that alternatively-fuelled trains such as those using hydrogen fuel cells or batteries will be significantly more expensive to manufacture than conventional diesel trains, let alone EMUs.  This is likely also to apply to ongoing operating and maintenance costs.  This, however, to an extent reflects the immaturity of the technology, which is in large part at an experimental stage.  As trials progress and experience is gathered, it is to be assumed that costs will fall – as is already the case with traction batteries for cars.[9]

6.2   To a large extent the comparison with the lifecycle cost of an EMU is unfair: as set out above, alternative traction methods are not likely to supplant electrification on busy intercity and suburban routes.  Pure electric traction, even including the capital costs of initial electrification itself, will in the vast majority of such cases be much more cost-efficient.  It is more reasonable however to consider the extent to which the lifecycle costs of alternative traction energy sources could be made competitive with those for diesel – especially if diesel fuel should become more expensive and/or if carbon or other emissions should be taxed.  This may well be achievable with technological advances; it should be recalled that diesel trains are fairly complex mechanically.  

6.3   While this question is largely one for the industry to answer, we would propose that it should set itself the challenge of producing a train that provides a sustainable, zero-emissions alternative to a DMU for lines where electrification is unlikely to be a priority in the short-to-medium term, and can do so with lifecycle costs that are at least competitive with current diesels. 

7        What the train interior of the future needs to have to ensure continued growth in rail travel, particularly amongst young people and future generations and to be fully accessible to all:

7.1   While this is a very different question from the others in this call for evidence, there is a common feature in the sense that moving towards a zero-emission and post-carbon transport future cannot be successful if rail services are not attractive.  We do not propose to provide detailed evidence on what specific aspects of a train’s interior render it attractive, but our research has tended to confirm what features are valued. 

7.2   It should be emphasised that there is something of a hierarchy of needs, in that at present on many services in the Leeds City Region the provision of a train which has sufficient space for those wishing to travel cannot be taken for granted, and with the poor condition of much rolling stock on regional services, passengers’ expectations are not high.  However, merely providing standing space (let alone a seat) will not be sufficient to drive modal shift from the comfort of a car.  Therefore meeting these basics must be the absolute priority.

7.3   Train provision must however be more ambitious than meeting these basic needs if rail is to be attractive: trains must be comfortable in terms of seating quality, space, window-alignment, saloon heating/cooling, noise/vibration levels and general ambience. Communications connectivity needs should be recognised – noting that the move to smartphones and tablets has been one driver of modal shift to rail – though further research would be of value in order better to understand the trade-offs between spending on, for example, wi-fi connectivity as against ensuring 4G/5G coverage along a rail route.  Trains need to be suitable for the markets they serve – at present in this region many suburban routes are served by trains originally intended for interurban use; conversely there are interurban services formed of Pacer railbus trains, and the Cross-Country network uses trains that are not of intercity standard. 

7.4   Full accessibility needs to become a standard feature which the passenger can take for granted – a right rather than a privilege.  It is not just those with “obvious” physical disabilities who benefit direct from interventions on trains and at stations to achieve this: such measures make for a more convenient and user-friendly railway generally, and may well also provide operational benefits such as reduced station dwell times.  As such, while beyond the scope of this submission, the upgrade of stations to modern accessibility standards needs to enjoy a far higher priority than at present; in the Leeds City Region, many busy and significant hub stations are inaccessible to significant portions of the community.

May 2019