Hydrogen Class 614 - It moves!

[Carntyne]

This hydrogen project looks suspiciously like a knackered old EMU trundling around the weeds at Bo'ness logging the sort of data that has already been gathered in Germany.

Sums it up quite well I think.

 

[BigB]

I had to chuckle at that. I do think we need to drop this sense of exceptionalism. This country must have a long list of "world beating" projects that failed to deliver. Anything involving nuclear power, renewables, fast aircraft or anything railway related post 1980s? All heralded as projects that the world will look at with envy.

This hydrogen project looks suspiciously like a knackered old EMU trundling around the weeds at Bo'ness logging the sort of data that has already been gathered in Germany.

What do you mean "weeds".......??

 

[Sonik]

A study by the German state of Baden-Wuerttemberg has concluded that there is no place for hydrogen traction in decarbonising the state's railways. Diesel trains will instead be replaced by a mix of battery trains and infill electrification. Baden-Wuerttemberg has some practical experience of hydrogen, having tested an Alstrom Coradia iLint unit between July 2021 and February 2022.

Baden-Württemberg rules out hydrogen traction

GERMANY: Hydrogen-powered rolling stock is less efficient and more expensive than battery-powered traction on non-electrified routes, according to a study commissioned by the Baden-Württemberg Land transport ministry.

www.railwaygazette.com

("Hybrid" in this context means the capability to use OHLE as well as hydrogen or batteries.)

I'm extremely skeptical about hydrogen as a fuel in general; hydrogen boilers for example are a sheer lunacy that will never compete economically.

But I would be prepared to admit that the very remote, low usage lines in the north of Scotland might be one area where hydrogen trains actually could have a place. Economic it isn't, but then these services aren't anyway.

 

[Noddy]

A study by the German state of Baden-Wuerttemberg has concluded that there is no place for hydrogen traction in decarbonising the state's railways. Diesel trains will instead be replaced by a mix of battery trains and infill electrification. Baden-Wuerttemberg has some practical experience of hydrogen, having tested an Alstrom Coradia iLint unit between July 2021 and February 2022.

Baden-Württemberg rules out hydrogen traction

GERMANY: Hydrogen-powered rolling stock is less efficient and more expensive than battery-powered traction on non-electrified routes, according to a study commissioned by the Baden-Württemberg Land transport ministry.

www.railwaygazette.com

("Hybrid" in this context means the capability to use OHLE as well as hydrogen or batteries.)


View attachment 123127

Like some others here I’m extremely sceptical in general about hydrogen (it seems to be promoted entirely by the fossil fuel industry, who I think know we can never get enough ‘green’ hydrogen).

What I’d be interested to see rather than cost is a comparison of CO2 per mile say, of a diesel, hybrid and the various ‘types’ of hydrogen. Everyone seems to think only of green hydrogen but in reality large scale hydrogen production will require fossil fuel energy to produce. Given the extremely inefficient nature of hydrogen production, storage, and use how much better is it actually than other traditional and hybrid solutions?

 

[Bob Price]

Interesting to hear some places in Germany have said no more hydrogen. I wonder how much of this is promoted by the oil and gas companies who know they can make money off it?

German state Baden-Württemberg finds battery to be best solution for diesel alternative trains

After studying the various options, the transport ministry of Baden-Württemberg will no longer consider hydrogen trains, and finds battery-electric vehicles as the best, and mainly the cheapest solution. The state and research partners examined a total of 16 non-electrified route sections for...

www.railtech.com

 

[Alanko]

What do you mean "weeds".......??

Figuratively rather than literally! It was not intended to be a slight at the P-Way guys at Bo'ness.

I was reflecting on the optics of this project. We know that Germany has implemented hydrogen technology at scale, put it into production and trialed it commercially. Contrast that with a retrofitted cast-off EMU pootling around a heritage line at two miles an hour. It suggests, to me, the political will isn't really there to make the project a success.

On the flip side, it is good to see a heritage railway utilised as a sort of 'skunkworks' for experimental projects. That converted DVT was still on site the last time I visited Bo'ness.

 

[InTheEastMids]

This hydrogen project looks suspiciously like a knackered old EMU trundling around the weeds at Bo'ness logging the sort of data that has already been gathered in Germany.

Sums it up quite well I think.

Finding it hard to disagree at this point. The key bit that might be useful is to understand how to package H2 powertrains within GB loading gauge, and the potential for converting GB EMUs to H2. The 769 & 230 projects have made the second one look misguided. And even if you were serious now, you'd at least try it on one of the ex-Heathrow 360/2 so you could prove it on something reasonably modern.

Like some others here I’m extremely sceptical in general about hydrogen (it seems to be promoted entirely by the fossil fuel industry, who I think know we can never get enough ‘green’ hydrogen).

Yes, the gas networks were particularly enthusiastic to do hydrogen projects, because in the long-term they'd have no reason to exist. And if the regulator took that view then they'd be moving the networks into managed decline, whereas thanks to this, they have been able to continue to invest for a return on their asset bases. That being said, my conversations indicate a degree of realism kicking in - for most people the 2050 heating system is likely to be electric.

A couple of perspectives on the rail application. This article (link below) is based on some work that's been funded by Ofgem so would expect it to be of generally good quality, and suggests the Far North Line (280 km) is a good candidate for H2. However, my take is probably the extreme best-case for GB due its remoteness and low traffic levels, that bar chart won't look so good anywhere else.

Even so, the chart has no infrastructure capex for the hydrogen option, so must assume that somebody else has done all the upstream and midstream investment to provide H2 at the fuelling station for the train. I wonder if power network upgrade costs have been included or excluded from the electrification option?

It points out all the other stressors on electricity networks as a reason to do something different with rail, whilst simultaneously noting that rail electricity consumption is a drop in the ocean. However, if you're rebuilding the electricity grid for EVs and electric heat, the additional cost of delivering rail traction energy is going to be quite small. Even the pro-hydrogen view of this article is suggesting that shorter routes such as 65 km to Stranraer are looking increasingly like batteries & discontinuous electrification

Electric & Hybrid Rail Technology October 2022 Page-44

ehr.mydigitalpublication.co.uk

This speech from the World Hydrogen Congress is also quite interesting [link below]. For the Far North Line, the alternative to H2 is more likely sustainable biofuels than batteries.
Add in a hydbrid powertrain and potentially the ability to power/recharge from OHLE, it may be that a biodiesel-powered 756 is the answer, rather than H2 and a fuel cell.

Michael Liebreich's Keynote Speech at World Hydrogen Congress 2022

Michael Liebreich, leading clean energy analyst and founder of Bloomberg New Energy Finance gives a keynote speech at the World Hydrogen Congress in October 2022

vimeo.com

 

[37201xoIM]

Really interesting post and links (the latter of which I'll peruse when I get a chance!), @InTheEastMids - thanks!

So all in all it seems Half Man Half Biscuit were right: "Nobody cares about your hydrogen hub, so get the ****ing wires up"!

 

[Invincible]

The UK does not have a good reputation in overhead wires due to the Great Western main line electrification overrunning and running out of money with the factory train (which was supposed to speed up installation overnight).
The decision in Germany seems down to a regional preference in Baden-Wuerttemberg, whereas Lower Saxony will continue with Hydrogen and Alstom has contracts for Hydrogen trains in other areas and countries. It could be these are changed for overhead/battery trains?. So far the UK has not committed to any mainline Hydrogen train testing other than the short test with the Hydroflex train in 2020. Tees Valley was to get Hydrogen trains, but has gone quiet.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

On the flip side, it is good to see a heritage railway utilised as a sort of 'skunkworks' for experimental projects. That converted DVT was still on site the last time I visited Bo'ness.

Not for the first time either. The Great Central is used for various tests at times, and I recall a trip to the West Somerset Railway back in the 1990s... where I was pleasantly surprised to see that the section between Bishops Lydeard and Norton Fitzwarren (which at the time wasn't in regular heritage use) was being used to test the PCVs (Propelling Control Vehicles) for use on mail trains.

 

[Sonik]

Even the pro-hydrogen view of this article is suggesting that shorter routes such as 65 km to Stranraer are looking increasingly like batteries & discontinuous electrification

This highlights the other big problem with Hydrogen - it's only useful in extreme edge cases, as such it will never achieve the market penetration and critical mass that is required to bring down costs through volume efficiency.

Compare this to batteries which are already produced in the billions, supported by a rapidly growing market for EVs and a substantial existing use base in personal electronic devices i.e. phones & tablets.

I expect that ultimately batteries/discontinuous electrification will be used wherever possible, simply because it's likely to be cheaper in all but the most extreme cases.

 

[Noddy]

Finding it hard to disagree at this point. The key bit that might be useful is to understand how to package H2 powertrains within GB loading gauge, and the potential for converting GB EMUs to H2. The 769 & 230 projects have made the second one look misguided. And even if you were serious now, you'd at least try it on one of the ex-Heathrow 360/2 so you could prove it on something reasonably modern.


Yes, the gas networks were particularly enthusiastic to do hydrogen projects, because in the long-term they'd have no reason to exist. And if the regulator took that view then they'd be moving the networks into managed decline, whereas thanks to this, they have been able to continue to invest for a return on their asset bases. That being said, my conversations indicate a degree of realism kicking in - for most people the 2050 heating system is likely to be electric.

A couple of perspectives on the rail application. This article (link below) is based on some work that's been funded by Ofgem so would expect it to be of generally good quality, and suggests the Far North Line (280 km) is a good candidate for H2. However, my take is probably the extreme best-case for GB due its remoteness and low traffic levels, that bar chart won't look so good anywhere else.

Even so, the chart has no infrastructure capex for the hydrogen option, so must assume that somebody else has done all the upstream and midstream investment to provide H2 at the fuelling station for the train. I wonder if power network upgrade costs have been included or excluded from the electrification option?

It points out all the other stressors on electricity networks as a reason to do something different with rail, whilst simultaneously noting that rail electricity consumption is a drop in the ocean. However, if you're rebuilding the electricity grid for EVs and electric heat, the additional cost of delivering rail traction energy is going to be quite small. Even the pro-hydrogen view of this article is suggesting that shorter routes such as 65 km to Stranraer are looking increasingly like batteries & discontinuous electrification

Electric & Hybrid Rail Technology October 2022 Page-44

ehr.mydigitalpublication.co.uk

This speech from the World Hydrogen Congress is also quite interesting [link below]. For the Far North Line, the alternative to H2 is more likely sustainable biofuels than batteries.
Add in a hydbrid powertrain and potentially the ability to power/recharge from OHLE, it may be that a biodiesel-powered 756 is the answer, rather than H2 and a fuel cell.

Michael Liebreich's Keynote Speech at World Hydrogen Congress 2022

Michael Liebreich, leading clean energy analyst and founder of Bloomberg New Energy Finance gives a keynote speech at the World Hydrogen Congress in October 2022

vimeo.com

Thanks for the links! I note that in the first article hydrogen for the Far North Line came out as the ‘lowest cost option’ but it’s explicit that it was ‘green’ hydrogen. I wonder how hydrogen created from burning gas came out?! Elsewhere, the article also notes that we need vast amounts of additional electricity as we transition away from fossil fuels but given the inefficiencies of hydrogen production requiring even more electricity I just don’t see how hydrogen is sensible for CO2 reduction. Like you say biofuels or other hybrid solutions are surely the way forward for the far north line and the handful of other very remote, long and lightly used lines we have.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Like some others here I’m extremely sceptical in general about hydrogen (it seems to be promoted entirely by the fossil fuel industry, who I think know we can never get enough ‘green’ hydrogen).

What I’d be interested to see rather than cost is a comparison of CO2 per mile say, of a diesel, hybrid and the various ‘types’ of hydrogen. Everyone seems to think only of green hydrogen but in reality large scale hydrogen production will require fossil fuel energy to produce. Given the extremely inefficient nature of hydrogen production, storage, and use how much better is it actually than other traditional and hybrid solutions?

Cost wise Hydrogen is expensive per km currently and i can't really see it ever being competitive given the amount of processing that is required to separate it out in the first place then compress it all takes a lot of energy. The one advantage it does have over batteries is its energy density even with the extra weight of the storage cylinders and the fuel cell, although to make it viable the trains would still need to carry around batteries as well, it could be fuelled up to run 800km+ based on I lint design deployed in Germany which makes them suitable for low usage long regional routes. If you went down the battery route for these routes then significant en route recharging infrastructure would be required as well as schedules that cater for recharge time.
Ultimately if we are to cease using diesel powered units we need alternatives however expensive or impractical they are compared to today. The bigger counter argument at the moment though with rail being less than 1% of UK emissions better just sitting on the sidelines to see how the various technologies develop before making long term commitments for rural routes.

 

[Razorblades]

Ultimately if we are to cease using diesel powered units we need alternatives however expensive or impractical they are compared to today.

Which could, or probably would, price certain lines out of existence.

The bigger counter argument at the moment though with rail being less than 1% of UK emissions better just sitting on the sidelines to see how the various technologies develop before making long term commitments for rural routes.

Exactly, because without such pragmatism, it's a headlong rush into half-baked solutions, with plenty of sunk cost.

 

[Deepgreen]

The problem with hydrogen is still making it.

Quite. Most comes from fossil fuel consumption. There will need to be a strong parallel work stream to develop a clean and efficient way to produce hydrogen for this sort of thing to live up to its touted promises. Fingers crossed.

 

[xotGD]

Quite. Most comes from fossil fuel consumption. There will need to be a strong parallel work stream to develop a clean and efficient way to produce hydrogen for this sort of thing to live up to its touted promises. Fingers crossed.

The government is developing a Low Carbon Hydrogen Standard. Whatever 'colour' of hydrogen is produced it will need to meet this standard to be regarded as a decarbonised fuel.

Green, blue and pink are just some of the technology options available.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The government is developing a Low Carbon Hydrogen Standard. Whatever 'colour' of hydrogen is produced it will need to meet this standard to be regarded as a decarbonised fuel.

Green, blue and pink are just some of the technology options available.

Blue hydrogen is a no hoper as anything involving carbon capture is just whimsical thinking. We haven't got enough green baseload power now before anyone thinks there would be surplus nuclear power for hydrogen production. Best hope is green hydrogen but to scale up the generation and electrolysis plants to cover existing liquid fuel consumption even with batteries taking the heavy load for cars and small vans is a massive undertaking.

 

[Sonik]

Blue hydrogen is a no hoper as anything involving carbon capture is just whimsical thinking. We haven't got enough green baseload power now before anyone thinks there would be surplus nuclear power for hydrogen production. Best hope is green hydrogen but to scale up the generation and electrolysis plants to cover existing liquid fuel consumption even with batteries taking the heavy load for cars and small vans is a massive undertaking.

Fully agree.

The problem we seem to have is that many hydrogen promoters don't understand (perhaps willfully) the difference between 'free' and 'zero marginal cost' in respect of the renewable electricity needed for green hydrogen production.

Hydrogen absolutely has it's uses but it's no free lunch.

Which could, or probably would, price certain lines out of existence.

Bear in mind that given the distances concerned, road transport has much the same problem, so it's all relative.

Trains do at least have the benefits of low rolling resistance and high weight carrying capacity (for both batteries and payload) so could even be economically advantaged by this transition. Rail freight for example has much lower sensitivity to fuel costs than trucking.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Compare this to batteries which are already produced in the billions, supported by a rapidly growing market for EVs and a substantial existing use base in personal electronic devices i.e. phones & tablets.

I expect that ultimately batteries/discontinuous electrification will be used wherever possible, simply because it's likely to be cheaper in all but the most extreme cases.

Unless a major scientific breakthrough is made with regard to energy storage, batteries on any sort of scale won't actually do all that much from an environmental perspective. They'll just move the damage to places that won't be quite as damaging to the reputations of the companies involved.

It's easy to say "look at our new 'green' battery trains", as long as the media ignores the state of lithium mines in sub-saharan Africa.

 

[xotGD]

as anything involving carbon capture is just whimsical thinking

The HyNet and East Coast CCS Clusters should be up and running by 2026/27. Both include blue hydrogen on their shortlist of capture projects.

Of course, blue hydrogen locks us in to natural gas usage for decades to come. Whether that is the right approach is a separate debate.

 

[haggishunter]

...Elsewhere, the article also notes that we need vast amounts of additional electricity as we transition away from fossil fuels but given the inefficiencies of hydrogen production requiring even more electricity I just don’t see how hydrogen is sensible for CO2 reduction. Like you say biofuels or other hybrid solutions are surely the way forward for the far north line and the handful of other very remote, long and lightly used lines we have.

A point being overlooked in some of this discussion is that in the context of rural North Scotland, there is and will increasingly be substantial scope for generating hydrogen through surplus renewable generation where there is potential to generate much more electricity than there is either demand or grid capacity for. The efficiency of the hydrogen process in this context is thus infinitely better than wasting that generating opportunity.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

A point being overlooked in some of this discussion is that in the context of rural North Scotland, there is and will increasingly be substantial scope for generating hydrogen through surplus renewable generation where there is potential to generate much more electricity than there is either demand or grid capacity for. The efficiency of the hydrogen process in this context is thus infinitely better than wasting that generating opportunity.

Indeed that is a fair point on far too many days Scottish onshore wind warms are constrained off the network (and get paid handsomely for the inconvenience) due to the inadequate transmission capacity in North of Scotland so would make sense to install electrolysers at the windfarms to absorb available energy and then transport it to bus/train depots.

 

[Sonik]

Indeed that is a fair point on far too many days Scottish onshore wind warms are constrained off the network (and get paid handsomely for the inconvenience) due to the inadequate transmission capacity in North of Scotland so would make sense to install electrolysers at the windfarms to absorb available energy and then transport it to bus/train depots.

Essentially though that's an issue that exists due to poor system planning, for which NG have an extensive north-south reinforcement plan to address over the coming decade. The government are even looking at streamlining planning law to facilitate it. Equally constraint payment are a deliberate market distortion to support investment in windfarms, but no one is going to finance very capital intensive electrolisers for them to sit there doing nothing, waiting for a very windy day.

So hydrogen from curtailed electricity isn't likely to be a big thing in future IMO. I expect most commercial scale green hydrogen projects will use dedicated windfarms to maximise yield and return on investment.

But Scotland is indeed an ideal place to locate these things, especially if the hydrogen can be utilized locally.

It's easy to say "look at our new "green" battery trains, as long as the media ignores the state of lithium mines in sub-saharan Africa.

You can say that about anything. Windfarms are made of concrete, steel, copper and plastic, and Hydrogen uses them much less efficiently than direct electric or battery.

It's all still better than Diesel in the long run, but resource efficiency and ethical sourcing is obviously important whatever we do.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It's all still better than Diesel in the long run, but resource efficiency and ethical sourcing is obviously important whatever we do.

Is it though? It's horribly inefficient from mine to end-use. Large amounts of diesel emissions in heavily populated areas aren't great, but once you're out in the sticks it really isn't the problem that certain lobby groups make it out to be. A better hybrid solution would be smaller, lighter batteries used for first and last-mile approaches to city centres, and recharged using regenerative braking. Still not better than putting wires up though.

As long as certain places continue to burn coal in such huge quantities, the UK could electrify the entire network and power it all through nuclear power or renewables, and it would barely scratch the surface of global CO² emissions.

 

[Sonik]

Is it though? It's horribly inefficient from mine to end-use. Large amounts of diesel emissions in heavily populated areas aren't great, but once you're out in the sticks it really isn't the problem that certain lobby groups make it out to be. A better hybrid solution would be smaller, lighter batteries used for first and last-mile approaches to city centres, and recharged using regenerative braking. Still not better than putting wires up though.

As long as certain places continue to burn coal in such huge quantities, the UK could electrify the entire network and power it all through nuclear power or renewables, and it would barely scratch the surface of global CO² emissions.

I guess you are right, but many of these issues can be addressed, for example through more sustainable mining techniques and recycling of end of life batteries.

In terms of UK impact, someone has to lead the way and show what can be done, as the UK has done with offshore wind. Others will catch up, because renewable energy and electrification of everything (transport, heat, industry) is actually much cheaper in the long run. Those that don't get on board will be out-competed, globally. The tide has turned - even world number 1 climate skeptic Exxon had a shareholder revolt. And China is trying harder than most realize (truly massive rollout of Renewables and Nuclear) and may yet surprise us.

100% agree that wires are best, but realistically they wont get everywhere, so we have to have other solutions for those hard to reach places.

 

[Noddy]

Unless a major scientific breakthrough is made with regard to energy storage, batteries on any sort of scale won't actually do all that much from an environmental perspective. They'll just move the damage to places that won't be quite as damaging to the reputations of the companies involved.

It's easy to say "look at our new 'green' battery trains", as long as the media ignores the state of lithium mines in sub-saharan Africa.

To me this statement just seems to repeat the usual anti-battery tropes which have been put out by the fossil fuel industry, and ignores the reality of what is happening. We were told 15-20 years ago that hydrogen fuel cells were the future for Automotive industry and batteries were at best an interim and at worst a joke. Then it was batteries for cars maybe, but not large vehicles. Where are we now? Toyota has finally given up on the Mirai but are in big big trouble because they’ve invested in the wrong technology. Electric vans are rapidly becoming very popular with fleet operators and Tesla’s Semi (500 mile range at 60mph pulling 36tons) is rolling off the production line in the US as we speak. We are at the tipping point in home battery technology where it’s going from a tiny difficult niche to mainstream, which will allow homes to run literally on sunshine, and to help balance the grid.

To modify your statement the reality is unless a major scientific breakthrough is made with regard to fuel cell technology and hydrogen production, hydrogen on any sort of scale won't actually do all that much from an environmental perspective.

Finally, the vast majority of Lithium is mined in Australia, South America (the so called Lithium triangle), and China, and 95%+ of what goes into batteries is recyclable. Future batteries will simply reuse material from old batteries. Why would you throw away valuable metals? While the impact of mining precious resources in areas where there are poor environmental protections is undoubtedly often terrible, this can (and should) be mitigated, and the quantities required are still tiny compared to the terrible impacts of fossil fuel extraction.

A point being overlooked in some of this discussion is that in the context of rural North Scotland, there is and will increasingly be substantial scope for generating hydrogen through surplus renewable generation where there is potential to generate much more electricity than there is either demand or grid capacity for. The efficiency of the hydrogen process in this context is thus infinitely better than wasting that generating opportunity.

Again a bit of a trope. Why spend large amounts of money building inefficient electrolyzers when the money would be much better spent improving the network so as close to possible 100% of the generated energy could be used (or stored)?

 

[rf_ioliver]

The output that can be seen coming from the coach nearest the camera, what is that? I'm not sure what the by-product from using hydrogen is, it sure looks harmless but I'm just wondering what it is.

Dihydrogen monoxide - one of the most dangerous substances known to man; huge contributor to global warming. Terrible stuff - I believe the New Zealand Green Party almost succeeded into banning the stuff but was beaten by the Industrial-DHMO Complex....

Seriously

2H2 + O2 = H20

Water


Thinking about it for a moment, isn't this just a steam engine?

 

[BigB]

Dihydrogen monoxide - one of the most dangerous substances known to man; huge contributor to global warming. Terrible stuff - I believe the New Zealand Green Party almost succeeded into banning the stuff but was beaten by the Industrial-DHMO Complex....

Seriously

2H2 + O2 = H20

Water


Thinking about it for a moment, isn't this just a steam engine?

Much better than a steam engine - this is pure water created from hydrogen and oxygen from the air.

Anyway, back to the topic. The 614 is running again this week, and will be tackling the hill from Bo'ness up to the high bridge. An engineering possession rules out further progress at present. Again, this is a proof of concept trial, and people need to stop imagining repurposed 314s trundling around the network being the way forward.

The concept of hydrogen for transport also needs to be looked at in the wider sphere. For rural Scotland a plant in Inverness would supply rail and buses etc as well as an alternative for methane for heating. There is a huge amount of available energy from wind in that area, which would suffer large losses being transmitted to England for example - the argument National Grid used for not buying power from Longannet, forcing its closure. Using it almost at source for hydrogen generation possibly offsets the transmission losses.

I'm sure that the people who are looking at this from a commercial view have all the facts they need, but if they don't, then there are no end of forums to keep them right, maybe even suggesting which trains we'd like to see on what lines. I'm pretty sure that will not have occurred to them

 

[Carntyne]

Much better than a steam engine - this is pure water created from hydrogen and oxygen from the air.

Anyway, back to the topic. The 614 is running again this week, and will be tackling the hill from Bo'ness up to the high bridge. An engineering possession rules out further progress at present. Again, this is a proof of concept trial, and people need to stop imagining repurposed 314s trundling around the network being the way forward.

What concept is it proving that hasn't already been proven?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Much better than a steam engine - this is pure water created from hydrogen and oxygen from the air.

Anyway, back to the topic. The 614 is running again this week, and will be tackling the hill from Bo'ness up to the high bridge. An engineering possession rules out further progress at present. Again, this is a proof of concept trial, and people need to stop imagining repurposed 314s trundling around the network being the way forward.

The concept of hydrogen for transport also needs to be looked at in the wider sphere. For rural Scotland a plant in Inverness would supply rail and buses etc as well as an alternative for methane for heating. There is a huge amount of available energy from wind in that area, which would suffer large losses being transmitted to England for example - the argument National Grid used for not buying power from Longannet, forcing its closure. Using it almost at source for hydrogen generation possibly offsets the transmission losses.

I'm sure that the people who are looking at this from a commercial view have all the facts they need, but if they don't, then there are no end of forums to keep them right, maybe even suggesting which trains we'd like to see on what lines. I'm pretty sure that will not have occurred to them

A real problem is that these rural routes suitable for hydrogen represent such a small addressable market for hydrogen vehicle tech that it might still not be worth it. Diesel works today because there are huge economies of scale. There's no difficulty getting diesel train parts for the Far North line because the supply chains are shared with the wider GB and world rail networks. The technology is further shared with other diesel internal combustion engine applications like trucks and boats and backup generators.

We know that electric trains work pretty well. Pretty much every portable device you might own or use already has a battery or will have one in future. The power requirements for a rural EMU aren't fundamentally that different, per-carriage, than an HGV. Any theoretical benefit a hydrogen train could have over a BEMU could probably, for less money, be addressed by adding more sections of traditional electrification.