Hydrogen powered trains ?

coppercapped · 12 Feb 2018

mike57 said:
I think the issue will be the transport and storage before it gets to the train. Hydrogen is highly flammable and has one of the lowest ignition energies at 0.02mJ. This means that an almost invisible spark will ignite a mixture of Hydrogen in air (i.e. a leak). Read this for some more background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety.

Taken as proportion of total diesel fuel consumption in the UK what proportion do rail based diesel engines use, I suspect it is small so is it really worth setting a whole new infrastructure up to support hydrogen powered trains, I suspect the money would be much used in other ways. Its one thing to have a few 'research' trains quite another to change the whole infrastructure over.

From the Dept. of the Environment and Climate Change DUKES statistics, the rail sector uses some 600,000 tonnes of diesel/gas oil per year. Total refinery production is around 64 million tonnes per year and DERV for roads amounts to 24 million tonnes per year. So rail uses 2.5% of diesel consumption on the roads and less than 1% of total oil production

So I agree with you - spend the R&D money somewhere else where it will get more bang for the buck.

RailUK Forums

L&Y Robert · 12 Feb 2018

Thank you WatcherZero. I have heard of 'fuel cells', even bandied the words about in conversation, but I never knew what they were. I think I must do a bit of serious reading on it now.

Bletchleyite · 12 Feb 2018

MarlowDonkey said:
He really should talk to his boss who has cancelled or postponed electrification schemes on the premise that bi-modes (with diesel power) will suffice.

More importantly, he should talk to both "wmtrains" and Northern who have both ordered classic DMUs with mechanical transmission that, as a rail vehicle typically lasts 40-50 years, will be in use well beyond 2040.

These orders really should be at the very least switched to bi-mode, ideally with any engines and fuel tanks fitted on removable modular rafts to allow replacement with "something else that produces electricity" once that "something else" is developed. Or if nothing else at all, they need to be designed so the engines could be removed and replaced with something producing rotation (i.e. body-hung traction motors) without too much difficulty.

Domh245 · 12 Feb 2018

I don't think that the WMT civities have been confirmed either way with regards to drive method, so it certainly isn't impossible that they already are DEMUs.

Bletchleyite · 12 Feb 2018

Domh245 said:
I don't think that the WMT civities have been confirmed either way with regards to drive method, so it certainly isn't impossible that they already are DEMUs.

Possible, I suppose. The 1xx class number for the Northern units makes it clear those aren't, though. And they're going to be doing a lot of running under the wires, which in my view really is scandalous.

tbtc · 12 Feb 2018

Mikey C said:
Would this be a ban on ordering diesel trains or operating them by 2040? If DMUs or diesel bimodes can't be used after 2040 years, then a lot of trains with only 20 years of use will be banned, and it's not as if existing units can be converted to run on hydrogen as surely the technology is completely different?

It looks carefully worded, given the way it switches from

"we’re committed to ending sales of petrol and diesel cars by 2040 - If we can achieve that, then why can’t the railway aspire to a similar objective?"

to

I would like to see us take all diesel-only trains off the track by 2040

.

There's a big difference from "not introducing any more diesel trains from 01/01/40" to "not running any diesel trains after 31/12/39".

It'd be typical politician to give the impression of a strict regime whilst only requiring a much looser one. Then again, it'd be typical politician to announce something fairly positive/ green/ long-term as a cheap distraction from the VTEC news (just like the positive headlines of the "we'll re-open piddly little branch lines that Beeching closed" announcement).

I don't see this as bad news for bi-modes. If anything, it makes them look a better investment, as you can get twenty years of diesel use out of future-proof trains (which can continue into the 2040s, unlike pure-diesel trains like the 195s that may have a pretty short shelf life).

Then again, the whole thing is a bit confusing/ vague.

There's a boast that "the much derided Pacers are going" but these short lightweight DMUs aren't the biggest polluters - there are many things to criticise Pacers for but for lightly used lines a 30m Pacer might be better than a heavyweight 46m Sprinter. But then, where do you draw the line? If environmental pollution is the problem then do you cut back on any diesel train with fewer than twenty/thirty/forty passengers per carriage? Do you abandon all heritage railways and excursions (whether steam or diesel)? There are other things to worry about.

Bletchleyite · 12 Feb 2018

tbtc said:
If environmental pollution is the problem then do you cut back on any diesel train with fewer than twenty/thirty/forty passengers per carriage? Do you abandon all heritage railways and excursions (whether steam or diesel)? There are other things to worry about.

This is why I have a *massive* concern, which today has only grown with this announcement, that it will be used as an excuse in about 20 years' time to have a "bonfire of the branch lines", to be replaced with "more environmentally friendly" electric buses.

The railway can stop this concern now...if it packs in ordering new traditional DMUs. Northern (and possibly wmtrains), I mean you.

The 172s really should have been the last classic DMUs (i.e. DMUs without a pantograph or third-rail shoes as applicable, or ideally both) ever ordered.

HSTEd · 12 Feb 2018

Its going to be very hard to fit the hydrogen in a pressure vessel of reasonable mass

D365 · 12 Feb 2018

Bletchleyite said:
The railway can stop this concern now...if it packs in ordering new traditional DMUs. Northern (and possibly wmtrains), I mean you.

'Traditional' ROSCOs aren't willing to pay extra for the development of EDMUs without confidence that their investment will bring a 30+ year return - though I must note I am not privy to the finer details of the Greater Anglia/Stadler/Rock Rail deal.

Bletchleyite · 12 Feb 2018

D365 said:
'Traditional' ROSCOs aren't willing to pay extra for the development of EDMUs without confidence that their investment will bring a 30+ year return - though I must note I am not privy to the finer details of the Greater Anglia/Stadler/Rock Rail deal.

This I don’t understand, as they are useful as regular EMUs too.

D365 · 12 Feb 2018

Bletchleyite said:
This I don’t understand, as they are useful as regular EMUs too.

Far more expensive to develop and therefore unit costs higher.

theageofthetra · 13 Feb 2018

Bletchleyite said:
This is why I have a *massive* concern, which today has only grown with this announcement, that it will be used as an excuse in about 20 years' time to have a "bonfire of the branch lines", to be replaced with "more environmentally friendly" electric buses.

The railway can stop this concern now...if it packs in ordering new traditional DMUs. Northern (and possibly wmtrains), I mean you.

The 172s really should have been the last classic DMUs (i.e. DMUs without a pantograph or third-rail shoes as applicable, or ideally both) ever ordered.

I completely agree.

Mikey C · 13 Feb 2018

If I was financing the 195s (for example) and I heard politicians talking about banning the operation of diesels after 2039 I'd be very worried.

It will be interesting what happens with the Chiltern lines, the last London terminus with no electrification, and I imagine there will be a lot of political pressure to remove diesels from Central London

HSTEd · 13 Feb 2018

bangor-toad said:
Whilst the robustness is going to be an issue, I can't see that providing a decent power to weight and power to space ratio is going to be a problem. In fact, I could see a bi-mode electric and hydrofgen fuel cell power unit being quite attractive.

As you say, the fuel cell itself is rather small and will fit easily.
That is unfortunately not the primary problem with hydrogen powered vehicles.

bangor-toad said:
Hydrogen storage isn't quite as straightforward as pouring diesel into a tank admittedly.
But new technologies are coming in and there are high capacity technolgies out there and being developed that can help solve this challenge. Maybe such as:
http://www.moftechnologies.com/applications/gas-storage/
I think the iLINT has the hydrogen clyinders on the roof. Whilst the UK loading gauge would make this a bit harder, I don't see it as an impossible issue - one section of a carriage could have a slightly lowered roof as some do already for the pantograph recess.

Will hydrogen powered trains work out? I don't know but I think the probabilites are higher than many may think...
Cheers,
Mr Toad

The hard part is going to be fitting the hydrogen tanks required into our vehicles and without building massively overweight units that will struggle to match the performance or track-friendliness of Sprinters.

The Ham · 13 Feb 2018

I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up seeing some relaxation, much in the same way as we're likely to see with the current 2020 deadline for rail vehicles needing to be compliant with the accessibility regulations.

The good news should be that electrification should be of higher priority, especially if battery powered trains are going to be used. Of course if batteries are fitted to trains, especially if they are widely fitted so that a train could limp a mile or two if the wires go down, then some electrification projects could be a lot cheaper to do as you could just skip any bridge and probably most tunnel works and the trains could still run without the risk of getting stuck. By only having a relatively small battery pack it wouldn't add much to the cost of the trains.

It would be interesting to see if anything is said about more electrification projects, or an annual budget for electrification is provided.

To that end I've started a petition asking for "More investment for electrification after the statement about diesel trains."

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/212757/sponsors/new?token=Od1nHG2PaYwdzxAfvMTd

Of course for many they're going to be happy at the thought of no more Voyagers! (Of course they were likely to be life expired or nearly life expired by 2040 anyway).

Bletchleyite · 13 Feb 2018

Mikey C said:
If I was financing the 195s (for example) and I heard politicians talking about banning the operation of diesels after 2039 I'd be very worried.

It will be interesting what happens with the Chiltern lines, the last London terminus with no electrification, and I imagine there will be a lot of political pressure to remove diesels from Central London

Logic says to me:
- Chiltern to get a large order of new bi-mode units of some kind.
- A progressive electrification programme, starting with something short like London to Wycombe to get the diesels out of Marylebone, this would also allow a small amount of the order/cascade to be simple EMUs for services that terminate at Wycombe.
- The 170s and 172s to be cascaded to regional operators to allow withdrawal of some 15x.
- Once electrification is complete either cascade the bi-modes to other franchises also doing such a progressive programme and replace with new or spare EMUs or remove the engines and use as EMUs.

As to the 195s if the financiers get the nerves and switch them to be bi-mode units all the better - that's really what they needed to be in the first place. With Northern it isn't even speculative - there is a huge amount of under-the-wires DMU running that needs to be stopped, and the option of removing diesel running from Manchester city centre entirely has to be worth considering.

The Aylesbury line is more complex and would require a bit more thought, because of the LU part. Bi-mode fourth-rail/diesel units could I suppose be considered, as could 25kV as far as Amersham, or even, if permitted, taking fourth rail all the way to Aylesbury and a new build of something like Aventras with the S-stock traction equipment.

The Ham · 13 Feb 2018

Bletchleyite said:
Logic says to me:
- Chiltern to get a large order of new bi-mode units of some kind
- A progressive electrification programme, starting with something short like London to Wycombe to get the diesels out of Marylebone
- The 170s and 172s to be cascaded to regional operators to allow withdrawal of some 15x
- Once electrification is complete either cascade the bi-modes to other franchises also doing such a progressive programme and replace with new or spare EMUs or remove the engines and use as EMUs.

My view is that it would make more sense to get bi-modals for XC and MML this time with the 22x's being reformed to be longer units (i.e. the same length as the loco hauled units but with the extra capacity brought by not needing a loco or DVT) to then run on Chiltern.

Then that allows a lot of small infill projects to make better use of the bi-modal units with a longer term electrification of the Chiltern line coming to a completion about 2038 in time for the 22x's to be scrapped.

Given that from Banbury and northwards would benefit XC and frieght anyway the length of electrification required solely for Chiltern isn't all that great, but does have some complications in the form of the underground. As such (sorry to suggest this) it's possibly one of the latter lines that needs doing.

Also, it's a good one politically to save to near the end so as to be seen investing in regions other than London and the Southeast without impacting on too many people. Especially given that it's likely to be impacted by HS2 and so passenger numbers may fall a bit about 2025.

Bletchleyite · 13 Feb 2018

I agree XC need something new - both to stop running under the wires (how much nicer would New St be without DMUs?) and because the Voyagers simply are not suitable for what they do. Class 802s are probably the obvious choice here, I would go for a 6 or ideally 7-car formation (remembering that the coaches are longer than Voyager coaches and have less wasted space). Though Stadler may be able to do something based on the SMILE (a faster version of the FLIRT).

Talking of Voyagers and the likes...are there any stats for particulate emissions from different types of units? I find the exhaust from idling Voyagers to be by far the most unpleasant compared with other units (it feels thick and makes me want to puke), even ones with very old designs of engine like 15x. Could these be more of a priority than 15x?

fflint · 13 Feb 2018

I know that ministers normally only think about the future in terms of the next general election but junior rail minister Jo Johnson has called for the retirement of Diesel trains by 2040.

From the International Rail Journal: http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...onisation-of-rail-in-britain.html?channel=000
http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...onisation-of-rail-in-britain.html?channel=000

BRITAIN’s minister of state with the Department of Transport (DfT), Mr Jo Johnson, has called for the withdrawal of diesel-only trains by 2040 and the decarbonisation of the railway.

In his first speech as rail minister, Johnson says he wants the railway to provide a vision of how it will decarbonise. “I expect the industry to report back by the autumn,” he said during a speech in London on January 12. “I want to see a clear, long-term strategy with consistent objectives and incentives.”

Johnson says he wants options like lighter rolling stock and alternative sources of power, such as batteries and hydrogen, to be considered and analysed. “I want barriers to innovation removed, so ideas can be brought to market more rapidly, and I want to see the railway industry show a lead on this crucial issue,” he says.

While acknowledging that rail is less carbon intensive than road transport, Johnson claims rail emissions in Britain have increased by 33% since 1990. But this has been driven by an increase in traffic and a failure to electrify the network.

Some electrification has been carried out during the last few years, particularly in Scotland and northwest England, but the delays and cost overruns on the Great Western Main Line electrification project resulted in the government scaling the project back, and cancelling or deferring other schemes.

The government believes that increasing use of bi-mode electro-diesel trains, which cost more to purchase and maintain than conventional EMUs, is the way forward, together with alternative fuels, which takes the government full circle back to its previous anti-electrification stance.

I presume he cleared it with his boss.

Is it achievable or is just government waffle?

pemma · 13 Feb 2018

Around 10 years ago we had Labour saying an order of new DMUs wasn't viable but we know have orders of DMUs in place for Northern and West Midlands Railway. I think there's more chance of Boris Johnson demanding for Brexit to be called off than the yet to be delivered CAF Civities being withdrawn by 2040. I also don't see why he seems to be ruling out a DMU running a Lancaster-Barrow shuttle (or similar) but not a bi-mode running Manchester Airport to Barrow switching to diesel at Lancaster (or similar), the latter would actually be less green !

Bletchleyite · 13 Feb 2018

jcollins said:
Around 10 years ago we had Labour saying an order of new DMUs wasn't viable but we know have orders of DMUs in place for Northern and West Midlands Railway. I think there's more chance of Boris Johnson demanding for Brexit to be called off than the yet to be delivered CAF Civities being withdrawn by 2040. I also don't see why he seems to be ruling out a DMU running a Lancaster-Barrow shuttle (or similar) but not a bi-mode running Manchester Airport to Barrow switching to diesel at Lancaster (or similar), the latter would actually be less green !

I have proposed the idea of chopping the Barrow line at Lancaster before. On the face of it you would expect it to be unpopular, but when you observe actual loadings on those trains (my sister used to live in Ulverston so I've been up that way a fair bit) there seems to be very little demand for Barrow through to Manchester, and most people alight at Lancaster either to change to a London train or simply to go to the city itself. In my experience they run almost nearly empty between Lancaster and Preston (barring a few Lancaster-Manchester passengers), and then pick up an entirely different set of passengers onwards to Manchester.

One way to do this using the stock that is available/on order would be to run an EMU service using a Class 319 (or one of the new EMUs) from Manchester Airport to Oxenholme (the branch platform is wired) with the Barrow line services timed to connect with it at Lancaster in both directions. Oxenholme-Windermere would be a bit more difficult unless it was resignalled to permit two trains in the branch platform, but it could be timed to connect in one direction and with the TPE from Scotland in the other direction.

Another option might be to run that EMU to Carlisle instead, or even to run a Crewe-Carlisle stopping EMU rather than running it from Manchester.

pemma · 13 Feb 2018

Bletchleyite said:
I have proposed the idea of chopping the Barrow line at Lancaster before. On the face of it you would expect it to be unpopular, but when you observe actual loadings on those trains (my sister used to live in Ulverston so I've been up that way a fair bit) there seems to be very little demand for Barrow through to Manchester, and most people alight at Lancaster either to change to a London train or simply to go to the city itself. In my experience they run almost nearly empty between Lancaster and Preston (barring a few Lancaster-Manchester passengers), and then pick up an entirely different set of passengers onwards to Manchester.

I was using it purely as an example of why Mr Johnson's idea of withdrawing all DMUs and using lots of bi-modes might not be the green solution he thinks it is. They'll be loads of other examples and if we get more lines wires by 2040 the actual routes where it may be sensible to keep a DMU shuttle will change.

Bletchleyite · 13 Feb 2018

Thinking more on the above, I think the idea of getting the wires done to Windermere and then running hourly Manchester Airport to Windermere with connections at Lancaster to Barrow is quite possibly onto a winner when you look at which has the higher demand for direct services to Manchester and the Airport, particularly in peak season.

Mikey C · 13 Feb 2018

The Ham said:
My view is that it would make more sense to get bi-modals for XC and MML this time with the 22x's being reformed to be longer units (i.e. the same length as the loco hauled units but with the extra capacity brought by not needing a loco or DVT) to then run on Chiltern.

Then that allows a lot of small infill projects to make better use of the bi-modal units with a longer term electrification of the Chiltern line coming to a completion about 2038 in time for the 22x's to be scrapped.

Given that from Banbury and northwards would benefit XC and frieght anyway the length of electrification required solely for Chiltern isn't all that great, but does have some complications in the form of the underground. As such (sorry to suggest this) it's possibly one of the latter lines that needs doing.

Also, it's a good one politically to save to near the end so as to be seen investing in regions other than London and the Southeast without impacting on too many people. Especially given that it's likely to be impacted by HS2 and so passenger numbers may fall a bit about 2025.

The 22x may be fine for the Birmingham trains, but not as replacements for the 168s, while HS2 will have little impact as the majority of growth is in the fast growing towns along the Chiltern route.

The 165s will be the first stock that needs replacing anyway. While all diesels will eventually be replaced, from an air quality point of view a DMU chugging through rural areas is far less of a problem than one running into Central London

Agent_Squash · 13 Feb 2018

Bletchleyite said:
I have proposed the idea of chopping the Barrow line at Lancaster before. On the face of it you would expect it to be unpopular, but when you observe actual loadings on those trains (my sister used to live in Ulverston so I've been up that way a fair bit) there seems to be very little demand for Barrow through to Manchester, and most people alight at Lancaster either to change to a London train or simply to go to the city itself. In my experience they run almost nearly empty between Lancaster and Preston (barring a few Lancaster-Manchester passengers), and then pick up an entirely different set of passengers onwards to Manchester.

One way to do this using the stock that is available/on order would be to run an EMU service using a Class 319 (or one of the new EMUs) from Manchester Airport to Oxenholme (the branch platform is wired) with the Barrow line services timed to connect with it at Lancaster in both directions. Oxenholme-Windermere would be a bit more difficult unless it was resignalled to permit two trains in the branch platform, but it could be timed to connect in one direction and with the TPE from Scotland in the other direction.

Another option might be to run that EMU to Carlisle instead, or even to run a Crewe-Carlisle stopping EMU rather than running it from Manchester.

From my experience (starting from Ulverston as well) there has been some increase in loadings onboard services to the airport - for example, I was on a service at mid day and when I left it at Lancaster it was still busy inside with passengers from the Furness Line.

However, I do think that a lot of people will change simply due to the better service offered on the WCML generally. Once the Furness Line finally gets a somewhat decent service (a solid 1tph) then I think demand will pick up.

physics34 · 13 Feb 2018

why dont they just concentrate on running a reliable, affordable, customer friendly railway as a priority.

pemma · 13 Feb 2018

Agent_Squash said:
However, I do think that a lot of people will change simply due to the better service offered on the WCML generally. Once the Furness Line finally gets a somewhat decent service (a solid 1tph) then I think demand will pick up.

It won't be a solid 1tph, it'll be 1tph between Manchester Airport and Lancaster via Wigan with most of those continuing to Barrow and the rest going to Windermere.

MarlowDonkey · 13 Feb 2018

jcollins said:
I was using it purely as an example of why Mr Johnson's idea of withdrawing all DMUs and using lots of bi-modes might not be the green solution he thinks it is.

Bi-modes are diesel as well. He needs to clarify his thinking, unless he's betting the shop on hydrogen. Rail vehicles can stay in service for forty years. If he's saying no trains are allowed to run on diesel from 2040, he's shutting down the supply of new diesel trains and diesel based bi-modes from today. For that matter, he's got to figure out how freight trains are to be powered.

Agent_Squash · 13 Feb 2018

jcollins said:
It won't be a solid 1tph, it'll be 1tph between Manchester Airport and Lancaster via Wigan with most of those continuing to Barrow and the rest going to Windermere.

On the Furness Line itself there is 1tph between Barrow and Lancaster. Northern still haven't figured out clockface yet, though...

squizzler · 13 Feb 2018

In Daily telegraph:

Jo Johnson will call upon the rail companies to follow the automotive industry by switching to alternative fuels and battery technology

Repeat a lie often enough? Already two thirds thirds of trains are meant to be electric. What is the corresponding electric fraction of the car fleet?

We are committed to ending the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2040. If we can achieve that then why can't the railways aspire to a similar objective?

Presumably the intention is that no new diesel trains can be produced after 2040, however the rest of the release seems fairly positive that diesel operation will be finished.

Hydrogen powered trains ?

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member