Articles
Electrifying debate
In his article ‘Could better batteries electrify rail travel?’, Chris Stokel-Walker repeats the much-quoted figure of only 38% of our rail network being electrified. But this is measuring in route-miles, not by usage. Given the high capital cost of electrification, it is inevitable that the busiest lines are electrified first. If measured in passenger-miles (i.e. usage), that figure jumps to nearer 70%. Similarly, our motorways are a modest percentage of the road network in length, but carry a much larger share of total traffic.
The Merseyrail extension cited, using batteries, was absurd: just one mile of relatively cheap third rail (not overhead) electrification was avoided, at the Office of Road and Rail’s insistence, for unnecessary complexity and cost on the trains that are proving troublesome. Where our rail network desperately needs electrification is in in-fill schemes, notably for long-distance freight traffic, e.g. the short branch lines to the ports at Felixstowe and London Gateway, but also for passenger services such as to Uckfield in Sussex – currently diesel in otherwise electric territory. Scotland has led the way with a rolling programme of electrification, which keeps construction teams together and progressively reduces both capital and operating costs.
David Odling
An alternative view
The International Energy Agency’s inability to accurately predict deployment of global renewables is quite well known. It is also known for a bias towards traditional energy generation methods. For the sake of balance, could Professional Engineering compare its predictions for hydrogen’s annual demand in 2050 to another source?
The brilliant Auke Hoekstra of Eindhoven University has compared predicted solar deployment against actual for several IEA annual growth reports.
Joshua Knight
Sponsor with care
I have been a membership adviser for a number of years, focusing on member to fellow upgrades. My role is to review applications against the defined competencies and make a recommendation to the Professional Review Committee as to whether the applicant should be upgraded to FIMechE. It’s been a fascinating, enjoyable and rewarding experience learning how others are progressing their professional careers in the wonderful and diverse world of engineering.
However, assessors return a significant number of applications as the information and evidence provided is incomplete. A reasonable conclusion is that the sponsors have not carried out a critical review of the application and worked with the applicant to ensure it meets the criteria. At least one sponsor should be a fellow of IMechE or another professional institution registered with the Engineering Council, so should be familiar with the process and its requirements.
The guidance notes state: “You should discuss your application in detail with your sponsors to ensure they agree with the information you have provided. They are signing the form to indicate that they believe you are suitable for consideration as a fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.”
Applicants, pick your sponsor with care and use them as your mentor to help you present an application that will be successful. Sponsors, it’s a privilege and a responsibility to be asked to sponsor an application, so do take time to review the application and advise as necessary.
Wishing future applicants at any grade every success with their applications.
Bob Hayes
Want the best engineering stories delivered straight to your inbox? The Professional Engineering newsletter gives you vital updates on the most cutting-edge engineering and exciting new job opportunities. To sign up, click here.
Content published by Professional Engineering does not necessarily represent the views of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.