Future of Diesel traction in the future and will unelectrified lines have another fuel type?

[thenorthern]

Earlier today I was talking to a friend of mine who was showing me information about Hydrogen trains in France which he reckons are the future, I am a bit sceptical personally as the development of Hydrogen cars seems to have stalled over the past decade. I don't doubt there are possible alternative fuels but it seems that Diesel is so far unbeatable for unelectrified lines.

I was wondering though if there has been any mention of the future what "alternative fuels" may be used for unelectrified lines in the future and if there are any plans for a cut off date for new diesel trains similar to how from 2040 the Government says there will be a ban on new Diesel and Petrol cars.

 

[swt_passenger]

Here’s a couple of recent threads about Hydrogen power for trains:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/hydrogen-powered-trains.160598/
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/battery-electric-trains-or-hydrogen-trains.161526/

 

[broadgage]

For the reasons already given, I consider that general use of hydrogen powered trains is most unlikely.
The reasons may be summarised as
Expensive to produce.
Expensive to store.
Expensive to transport.
Too bulky for the train to carry enough.
Highly flammable and explosive.

IMO, the future is 25Kv overhead electrification for most of the network, including the busy parts.
For those parts of the network that can not be economically electrified, the near term future is largely diesel power. Remember that bi-mode units with diesel engines are being built right now, and are expected to remain in use for many years.

I expect a lot more use of battery powered trains for branch lines or secondary routes that are not electrified. Battery technology has advanced rapidly driven by demand for electric road vehicles.
A battery train with a range of 100 miles could be built right now and could compete with a DMU on some routes. Much longer ranges are possible, but the cost, weight, and bulk of the battery would make electrification more sensible, at least for part of the route. A train powered from 25Kv overhead, and with a 100 mile battery would be very useful indeed, and is entirely achievable.

I can foresee a VERY LIMITED return to steam for a few scenic branch lines with tourist potential.

 

[thenorthern]

I would agree that 25Kv electrification is the future.

My mum who is an automotive test engineer says that features unique to a certain manufacturer generally show that the feature isn't that good as other manufacturers would copy them. Features such as Boxer engines in Subarus, Wankel Engines in Mazdas and rear engines in the first VW Beatle are just some examples but at the same time the transverse engine front wheel drive with a stump mounted gearbox used in the original Mini designed has been incorporated into most modern cars today.

I can see Hydrogen trains joining the APT-E (gas-turbine trains), 125mph capable Diesel Hydraulic multiple units (Class 180) and trains with novel features that didn't work.

 

[Billy A]

I would agree that 25Kv electrification is the future.
.... but at the same time the transverse engine front wheel drive with a stump mounted gearbox used in the original Mini designed has been incorporated into most modern cars today.

.

Not quite. Transverse engines yes, but the gears-in-sump arrangement is long gone. Gearboxes are attached end-on.

 

[randyrippley]

I would agree that 25Kv electrification is the future.

My mum who is an automotive test engineer says that features unique to a certain manufacturer generally show that the feature isn't that good as other manufacturers would copy them. Features such as Boxer engines in Subarus, Wankel Engines in Mazdas and rear engines in the first VW Beatle are just some examples but at the same time the transverse engine front wheel drive with a stump mounted gearbox used in the original Mini designed has been incorporated into most modern cars today.

I can see Hydrogen trains joining the APT-E (gas-turbine trains), 125mph capable Diesel Hydraulic multiple units (Class 180) and trains with novel features that didn't work.

Your mum may be forgetting a few historical facts........
Boxer or flat engines have existed since 1907 (the patent is around ten years earlier) and are still in use by BMW (bikes), Porsche and a number of aviation applications. 100 years of continuous use, compared with around 50 for the transverse 4.

Rear engines date back to around the same time and are still in use by Porsche - though there is continuous development of rear-located boxer engines from the 1930's Czech and German designs through to modern vehicles. Post WW2 German family car production was almost exclusively rear engined: VW, NSU, Porsche, as was nearly all Renault. And don't forget Tatra and Skoda.

The gas turbine in the APT-E was never intended as a production design: they were a stopgap because the intended test routes were not electrified and no diesel had a viable power:weight ratio. Production APT was always intended to be electric.

Generally, engineering features unique to a specific manufacturer means other companies don't understand the technology. Too often engineers are taught to follow the existing methodology and ignore alternative technologies. Or are scared of using it. Porsche have rear engined technology and it works, and has worked for around 70 years, 30 more than transverse designs. Which is the more succesful?

 

[xotGD]

If you want a zero emission train it has to be either electric or hydrogen. Unless every line in the country were to be electrified, then we will be seeing a lot of hydrogen fuel cell trains running in the future.

 

[Kneedown]

25kv should be the future throughout the network. If you want to cut costs then incorporate a battery pack into the trains that will take over through tunnels, low bridges and other areas that will be expensive or problematic to give sufficient clearance for OHLE.

 

[hwl]

25kv should be the future throughout the network. If you want to cut costs then incorporate a battery pack into the trains that will take over through tunnels, low bridges and other areas that will be expensive or problematic to give sufficient clearance for OHLE.

Exactly Hydrogen is just an energy transmission vector rather than a fuel and a bad one at that.
According to Siemens - The energy efficiency of Hydrogen compared to 25kV* is circa 30% at best with battery at circa 80% at best

*25kV =100% for comparative bench marking slightly different to the normal way of using absolute efficiencies but probably more relevant to focus politicians minds.

There is also a very high probability the hydrogen isn't form a low carbon source.

 

[najaB]

There is also a very high probability the hydrogen isn't form a low carbon source.

While that is true today, if the Hydrogen Economy ever happens you can be fairly sure it won't take long for solar farms to pop up in deserts across the globe.

 

[hwl]

While that is true today, if the Hydrogen Economy ever happens you can be fairly sure it won't take long for solar farms to pop up in deserts across the globe.

That will be expensive

 

[najaB]

That will be expensive

Not really. PV prices have tumbled over the last decade and the only thing holding back more capacity is the lack of viable storage options.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Not really. PV prices have tumbled over the last decade and the only thing holding back more capacity is the lack of viable storage options.

Even storage isn't that big a deal. Tesla is one manufacturer of industrial scale battery storage, and I'm sure others will not be far behind.

The problem with Hydrogen is transporting it. It has far less liquid density than other gasses, meaning more or larger tankers to move enough compared to LNG or petrol/diesel.

 

[duesselmartin]

Germany had battery powered railcars from the 1960s. They lasted around 25 to 30 years.
I would assume that would be the branch line future as lines such as the Far North would hardly get electrification.

 

[richieb1971]

I think the engine and tender idea I thought of/or borrowed from elsewhere is the way to go.

On AC traction put a diesel powered tender behind it giving AC power to the locomotive wheels.
On diesel traction put a pantograph tender behind it to power the wheels of the diesel locomotive when under the wires.

Now you have locomotives that can go anywhere. Considering a steam engine used a tender to carry its fuel I'm surprised this has never been utilized post steam era.

If I was the UK government I would encourage the building of said technologies and give cash incentives to build it. The class 68-88 would be a great platform on which to work, most of the work is already done. You could use 3 or 4 of those 60's at Toton for the project. Its not like they are going anywhere fast.

This way you can electrify the railway at a leisurely pace. At which point you can ditch the AC pantograph tenders or convert them in case the wires go down.

This offers flexibility, contingency and its all using proven technology. The only thing that hasn't been tried is the coupling of said technologies.

All this stuff about hydrogen is nonsensical.

 

[najaB]

I think the engine and tender idea I thought of/or borrowed from elsewhere is the way to go.

Except that fixed-formations and distributed traction is very much the direction the railway has been moving for 50 years or more.

 

[185]

IMO, the future is 25Kv overhead electrification for most of the network, including the busy parts

Post Brexit, it would be interesting to see how much an overseas provider outside the EU could do a job lot of electrification for us.

Either a contract to produce all the overheads ie stantions, caternary and wires (we do the work) OR a contract to both produce and install them.

 

[najaB]

Post Brexit, it would be interesting to see how much an overseas provider outside the EU could do a job lot of electrification for us.

What on Earth does Brexit have to do with this?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Your mum may be forgetting a few historical facts........
Boxer or flat engines have existed since 1907 (the patent is around ten years earlier) and are still in use by BMW (bikes), Porsche and a number of aviation applications. 100 years of continuous use, compared with around 50 for the transverse 4.

Rear engines date back to around the same time and are still in use by Porsche - though there is continuous development of rear-located boxer engines from the 1930's Czech and German designs through to modern vehicles. Post WW2 German family car production was almost exclusively rear engined: VW, NSU, Porsche, as was nearly all Renault. And don't forget Tatra and Skoda.

The gas turbine in the APT-E was never intended as a production design: they were a stopgap because the intended test routes were not electrified and no diesel had a viable power:weight ratio. Production APT was always intended to be electric.

Generally, engineering features unique to a specific manufacturer means other companies don't understand the technology. Too often engineers are taught to follow the existing methodology and ignore alternative technologies. Or are scared of using it. Porsche have rear engined technology and it works, and has worked for around 70 years, 30 more than transverse designs. Which is the more succesful?

I don't think you got the point. Yes, certain car manufacturers have slightly different technologies which they alone specialise in. These technologies may well be older than the standard configuration. However, the fact that other car manufacturers haven't copied them for recent designs suggests that there are inherent flaws. If Wankel engines, Boxer engines or rear-engined vehicles in general were superior to front-mounted piston engines, then there'd be little reason for front-mounted piston engines to be the default.

Companies will stick around with semi-failed technologies out of a sense of pride or a need to differentiate their products. Porsche have done plenty of front-engined designs whenever they've done a clean-sheet product. It's only with the lineage products like the 911 family that they keep with rear engines, as otherwise they'd lose too much of what makes that product/brand meaningful in the first place. Mazda don't even make Wankel engines any more.

You can't make a case that engineers don't understand the technology properly when the same engineers working for the same company have decided not to use that technology in other products. Volkswagen AG/Porsche have developed hundreds of different vehicle models in the time.

In terms of rear-engined designs I think the only recent clean-sheet production everyday car design has been the Smart car, and through platform sharing the new Renault Twingo. That's because the FF design doesn't work for two-seater city car designs as there's not enough space for an engine in front of the occupants. But, looking at the problem more widely, you see that no one has really tried to copy Smart anyway. Evidently two-seat microcars aren't actually that useful.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Rear engines work very well, however the cheapest option is front mounted transverse in-line 4 with end on gearbox. At the end of the day for mass production, it is how cheaply the car can be made.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Post Brexit, it would be interesting to see how much an overseas provider outside the EU could do a job lot of electrification for us.

Either a contract to produce all the overheads ie stantions, caternary and wires (we do the work) OR a contract to both produce and install them.

Why can't they be made in the UK? Also as najab posted what the hell does Brexit have to do with it apart from how badly the £ is doing (which again would favour UK production)

 

[Domh245]

Also worth pointing out that the swiss firm Furrer+Frey produce all of the parts for GWEP, whilst the Italian Gruppo Bonomi produce the parts for series 2 (as used on all new schemes apart from GWEP) although I understand that the large steel parts (the masts and cross beams) are produced in the UK.

 

[185]

What on Earth does Brexit have to do with this?

As much as I consider it akin to the 1158 from Inverness going through Kyle of Lochalsh station at 50mph and into the drink..... One upside to the Brexit will be an ability to source major tenders from outside of the (expensive) EU. As unlikely as it is to happen, it would be interesting to see how much someone else could do the entire job for. As much as I would like to see train & infrastructure building here, this and several previous governments have destroyed it, thus we must import most things.

As for electrification, the UK falls behind the EU average of 53% at just 33%. Switzerland is currently 100%, with big countries - BE, NL, SE and IT between 70-85%.

Germany is around the average 52% - whilst France is ahead of it on 55%. We need government to realise it will cost us less in the long run, regardless of who builds it.

 

[hwl]

Not really. PV prices have tumbled over the last decade and the only thing holding back more capacity is the lack of viable storage options.

The transporting will of it will be expensive...

 

[najaB]

The transporting will of it will be expensive...

Once built, pipelines are cheap.

 

[GrimShady]

I think the engine and tender idea I thought of/or borrowed from elsewhere is the way to go.

On AC traction put a diesel powered tender behind it giving AC power to the locomotive wheels.
On diesel traction put a pantograph tender behind it to power the wheels of the diesel locomotive when under the wires.

Now you have locomotives that can go anywhere. Considering a steam engine used a tender to carry its fuel I'm surprised this has never been utilized post steam era.

If I was the UK government I would encourage the building of said technologies and give cash incentives to build it. The class 68-88 would be a great platform on which to work, most of the work is already done. You could use 3 or 4 of those 60's at Toton for the project. Its not like they are going anywhere fast.

This way you can electrify the railway at a leisurely pace. At which point you can ditch the AC pantograph tenders or convert them in case the wires go down.

This offers flexibility, contingency and its all using proven technology. The only thing that hasn't been tried is the coupling of said technologies.

All this stuff about hydrogen is nonsensical.

I've often thought something similar however that kind of thinking is way beyond most people's imagination. I surprised one of the forums 'can't do brigade' hasn't been along yet to ridicule your very sensible idea.

Foreign railways have for many years been using articulated electro diesel locomotives.

 

[najaB]

I surprised one of the forums 'can't do brigade' hasn't been along yet to ridicule your very sensible idea.

It quite obviously can be done just, as I pointed out earlier, the railway has moved towards fixed-formations and distributed traction rather that locomotives and trailers.

Unless it was a driving tender you also have the hassle of reforming consists at the changeover stations

 

[Domh245]

It quite obviously can be done just, as I pointed out earlier, the railway has moved towards fixed-formations and distributed traction rather that locomotives and trailers.

Unless it was a driving tender you also have the hassle of reforming consists at the changeover stations

That is true for passenger services, but freight still remains (obviously) without distributed traction, or (mostly) fixed formation. Whenever I've seen @richieb1971 propose this tender idea, it's been in relation to freight and it isn't a terrible idea. Rather than "loco and tender" it'd make more sense to consider it as 2 semi-permanently coupled locomotives (both having a driving cab for flexibility) to allow bi-modal operations for FOCs without trying to cram it all into one small bodyshell.

 

[43096]

That is true for passenger services, but freight still remains (obviously) without distributed traction, or (mostly) fixed formation. Whenever I've seen @richieb1971 propose this tender idea, it's been in relation to freight and it isn't a terrible idea. Rather than "loco and tender" it'd make more sense to consider it as 2 semi-permanently coupled locomotives (both having a driving cab for flexibility) to allow bi-modal operations for FOCs without trying to cram it all into one small bodyshell.

And like every other bi-mode solution it carts around one part of the traction equipment that does nothing - you're back to overweight electric / under-powered diesels. For the freight operators it is considerable additional capital or leasing expense which only spends a part of its time productive. Add in that the cost of such a beast is going to be high and you are killing any business case for it or just killing rail freight full stop.

People really need to get beyond coming up with these solutions that do not stack up financially. The freight business runs on thin margins and you just cannot overlook that.

 

[najaB]

Whenever I've seen @richieb1971 propose this tender idea, it's been in relation to freight and it isn't a terrible idea.

Given that freight isn't (mostly) super time-critical, this doesn't offer that great an advantage over changing from diesel to electric traction.