Alstom Class 321 Hydrogen 'Breeze' Updates & Discussion

jayiscupid · 8 Jan 2019

Looks like Alstom is progressing ahead with the conversion. Let's hope it's a smoother process than the 319 Flex. It does seem a little counterproductive that they've removed a trailer car (I assume for performance) and the front 1/3 on the driving trailers is taken up by the hydrogen tanks. So from a 4 car EMU you have a 2.5 coach Multiple Unit.

https://www.railjournal.com/fleet/alstom-and-eversholt-rail-unveil-breeze-hydrogen-train-for-britain/

RailUK Forums

Peter Mugridge · 8 Jan 2019

Looks like a very heavy hit on the passenger capacity? The illustration is of a 3 car until with 2½ cars worth of passenger space - if these are going to be replacing 2 car DMUs then that's not a huge gain - although it would have the great advantage of being clean.

jayiscupid · 8 Jan 2019

Peter Mugridge said:
Looks like a very heavy hit on the passenger capacity? The illustration is of a 3 car until with 2½ cars worth of passenger space - if these are going to be replacing 2 car DMUs then that's not a huge gain - although it would have the great advantage of being clean.

I guess they'll be able to work in pairs so capacity gains come from having over 100 potential 321 conversions as opposed to the shortage of DMUs at the moment. It's an interesting idea at least and something to utilise the Renatus 321s.

big all · 8 Jan 2019

to be fair the prototype will tend to have more fuel capacity than they think they need to prove the concept

they will then work backwards over the next 2 year and possibly give back the sliding doors and half a window section maybe more by underslinging some capacity

Jonny · 8 Jan 2019

Peter Mugridge said:
Looks like a very heavy hit on the passenger capacity? The illustration is of a 3 car until with 2½ cars worth of passenger space - if these are going to be replacing 2 car DMUs then that's not a huge gain - although it would have the great advantage of being clean.

I suspect that there might be an issue with fuel volume - in the best case (liquid hydrogen), energy density by volume is barely more than a quarter of that of diesel (however, hydrogen has four times the energy density by weight of diesel but that might be complicated if tanks are involved). That might be why such a large area is used; also there is a need to vent any leaks safely.

Wivenswold · 8 Jan 2019

jayiscupid said:
I guess they'll be able to work in pairs so capacity gains come from having over 100 potential 321 conversions as opposed to the shortage of DMUs at the moment. It's an interesting idea at least and something to utilise the Renatus 321s.

I understand that these will not be Renatus Units (which at the time sparked speculation that they've got a new home lined up) but will be plucked from non-PRM stock when it comes off lease with GA.

43096 · 8 Jan 2019

Peter Mugridge said:
Looks like a very heavy hit on the passenger capacity? The illustration is of a 3 car until with 2½ cars worth of passenger space - if these are going to be replacing 2 car DMUs then that's not a huge gain - although it would have the great advantage of being clean.

It’s worse than that as you also lose a load of space to a PRM toilet. So from a 3-car set, you actually end up with 2 cars of seating. With so many restrictions around platform lengths, that is appalling - it makes the Pendolino and Voyager interiors look like a paragon of efficient design!

I really don’t see how the economics of this stack up. With an expensive fuel, short range and lugging around an extra coach which generates no revenue the business case will be “challenging”. Add in the associated infrastructure costs for fuelling and it is hard to escape the conclusion that electrifying instead represents better value.

whhistle · 8 Jan 2019

An excellent way to test new tech and learn, but that's about the limit, surely?

I can't see anyone actually liking the idea of a 321 being in service for another 10/20 years, compared with having a brand new train.
But then if they change the cab/front end and really refresh the interiors, it could be a winner. At what cost though?

There was a document some time ago about the 319s and Parcers receiving a new front end, thus suggesting to the public it is a brand new train:

In seeking the revenue boost which comes from rolling stock improvements a new impression is needed from the moment the train arrives. Use of the “new” train as an advertising image is enabled by a complete new look to the front end.

The existing cab with emergency egress could be modernised to create the appearance of a new train by the replacement of the cab moulding. Designers Dg8 have been commissioned to produce a design which would pick up the existing fixing points and equipment interfaces. The result will create a first impression more striking than many new commuter trains.

If the unit end gangway is required some elements of the Dg8 design could be included, particularly the revised light clusters which would be blended around the gangway support flexitors.

If the 321s were to be paired to increase capacity, could be a good way to stick in a connection between them both.

A0wen · 8 Jan 2019

XCTurbostar said:
As far as I can see. No actual TOC has been put forward in this media report. I’m sure the local MPs would love a 30 year old 321 taking over from a 20 year old 170..

Edit: this is an interesting reference document https://anonw.com/2018/05/13/hydrogen-trains-herald-new-steam-age/

Scottish MPs and MSPs don't seem to have a problem with 40 year old rolling stock replacing 20 year old rolling stock.......

mwmbwls · 8 Jan 2019

I think that the proof of concept vehicle will be three coach - effectively replacing a two coach train. A bi-mode would be a four coach train - effectively three coaches. The increase in train weight when hauling a pantograph and additional electrics could count against train acceleration and speed whilst operating on Hydrogen. Peak time running involving two sets could also prove problematic in the North where many less used maximum station lengths are usually six coaches to allow for four coach operation. I am reminded of earlier proof of concept vehicles such as the battery units that operated in Scotland or the first generation rail buses - ideas that seemed good at the time. With so much stock being returned to the leasing companies you can see why they would wish to limit their balance sheet damage by redeployment but unlike the 769's - this might be a solution in search of a problem.

Bletchleyite · 8 Jan 2019

I don't think anyone is going to replace 170s with them. They're a potential 150 replacement, really, with the benefit of a bit of extra capacity and a lower emissions engine.

XCTurbostar · 8 Jan 2019

Peter Mugridge said:
Looks like a very heavy hit on the passenger capacity? The illustration is of a 3 car until with 2½ cars worth of passenger space - if these are going to be replacing 2 car DMUs then that's not a huge gain - although it would have the great advantage of being clean.

Not even that! You can see that the front portions of both Driving Ends are taken up with the equipment so in actual fact you've only got 2 cars of passengers..

Breeze is a bit of strange name for it. Pretty sure that the Breeze is a radio station..

43096 · 8 Jan 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I don't think anyone is going to replace 170s with them. They're a potential 150 replacement, really, with the benefit of a bit of extra capacity and a lower emissions engine.

But one that is going to be utterly useless at replacing a pair of 150s - which has to be Northern’s aim in terms of minimum train formation on urban duties - when a pair of these contraptions need 6-car platform length to provide a 4-car train to the punters.

There’s a host of other issues around union agreements and access from the cab to the saloon for the guard etc etc etc.

I rather think a 769 offers a much more efficient alternative.

Bletchleyite · 8 Jan 2019

43096 said:
But one that is going to be utterly useless at replacing a pair of 150s - which has to be Northern’s aim in terms of minimum train formation on urban duties - when a pair of these contraptions need 6-car platform length to provide a 4-car train to the punters.

There’s a host of other issues around union agreements and access from the cab to the saloon for the guard etc etc etc.

I rather think a 769 offers a much more efficient alternative.

But for one thing - we have to stop burning dirty diesel. It's quite literally killing people.

43096 · 8 Jan 2019

Bletchleyite said:
But for one thing - we have to stop burning dirty diesel. It's quite literally killing people.

Get the wires up then.

All this faffing around with bionic duckweed solutions is avoiding the elephant in the room: getting Network Rail to reduce its costs to enable a rolling programme of electrification. That is really the only sensible, credible way of doing it. Only in the UK could we end up with the utterly bonkers idea of using fuels that are much less efficient than diesel, require significant infrastructure to implement them anyway, incur major energy and transport costs to move, reduce passenger capacity and increase train weight. All because no-one will address the fundamental issue - it is an utterly dysfunctional way of running the railway.

Emblematic · 8 Jan 2019

43096 said:
Get the wires up then.

All this faffing around with bionic duckweed solutions is avoiding the elephant in the room: getting Network Rail to reduce its costs to enable a rolling programme of electrification. That is really the only sensible, credible way of doing it. Only in the UK could we end up with the utterly bonkers idea of using fuels that are much less efficient than diesel, require significant infrastructure to implement them anyway, incur major energy and transport costs to move, reduce passenger capacity and increase train weight. All because no-one will address the fundamental issue - it is an utterly dysfunctional way of running the railway.

Only in the UK? There are many trials of hydrogen fuelled trains going on globally. This looks to be a viable trial, because of the nearby chemical plant already producing H2 as a byproduct. Longer term, Hydrogen will likely form part of the renewable energy economy, as adding more renewables to the mix creates an increasing need to add means of storing surplus energy during peak production periods. We're at a very early stage now, it's hard to see what the landscape will be like in 20,30 or 50 years time.
By all means electrify, but pilot projects provide useful information as to what's practicable - otherwise we're just guessing.

mwmbwls · 8 Jan 2019

All innovation effectively begins as an experiment. Railway history is littered with such experiments. Some of the most improbable have turned out to be the most effective All innovation tends to follow the same path in that the nature of the questions asked by engineers tends to change over time. Understanding what questions are being asked by the engineers/operators enables you to place how mature an innovation is.

TRENDS OF EVOLUTION - INCREASING IDEALITY by Mwmbwls, on Flickr

I agree with an earlier respondent that this is an experiment that has suffered at the hands of journalists unqualified to judge. I suspect that the published cartoon, enabled by improved GGI probably overstates the case.

Is it worth continuing as an experiment absolutely - should its sponsors stake their balance sheet on it - absolutely not.

Bornin1980s · 8 Jan 2019

I suppose the above floor equipment is to mitigate fire risk. Are these still to run in the Tees Valley? If so, this would be long enough to directly replace the two car pacers.

Mikey C · 8 Jan 2019

43096 said:
But one that is going to be utterly useless at replacing a pair of 150s - which has to be Northern’s aim in terms of minimum train formation on urban duties - when a pair of these contraptions need 6-car platform length to provide a 4-car train to the punters.

There’s a host of other issues around union agreements and access from the cab to the saloon for the guard etc etc etc.

I rather think a 769 offers a much more efficient alternative.

What we also don't want is hydrogen trains running for significant distances under wires, so maybe they'll be concentrated in those areas with no electrification at all?

Bornin1980s · 9 Jan 2019

Mikey C said:
What we also don't want is hydrogen trains running for significant distances under wires, so maybe they'll be concentrated in those areas with no electrification at all?

Exactly. Such areas often require shorter trains. I was actually worried a four car 321 would be too long for the Tees Valley.

InTheEastMids · 9 Jan 2019

Mikey C said:
What we also don't want is hydrogen trains running for significant distances under wires, so maybe they'll be concentrated in those areas with no electrification at all?

There could be quite a strong economic incentive to switch to conventional OHLE if available. It depends on the source of the hydrogen. Hydrogen from stanlow that would otherwise be flared has very low marginal value, but if you're making green hydrogen from wind power, it's likely to be much more expensive than from OHLE because of the conversion inefficiency

Emblematic · 9 Jan 2019

InTheEastMids said:
There could be quite a strong economic incentive to switch to conventional OHLE if available. It depends on the source of the hydrogen. Hydrogen from stanlow that would otherwise be flared has very low marginal value, but if you're making green hydrogen from wind power, it's likely to be much more expensive than from OHLE because of the conversion inefficiency

Maybe, but in a future economy with a higher renewable mix, you could be heavily incentivised to produce & store during periods of energy production surplus, as part of the economics of balancing the grid. Currently wind farms are incentivised to shut down during some overproduction periods. What's almost certain is that despatchable power - available as and when required - will have an increasing premium over baseload, and that fossil fuels will fall out of the mix eventually.

Bletchleyite · 9 Jan 2019

Bornin1980s said:
Exactly. Such areas often require shorter trains. I was actually worried a four car 321 would be too long for the Tees Valley.

Is this really any different to the Stadler FLIRT and its power module? OK, no low-floor benefit, though.

43096 · 9 Jan 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Is this really any different to the Stadler FLIRT and its power module? OK, no low-floor benefit, though.

Looks to take up a lot more space than the FLIRT power module.

Bornin1980s · 10 Jan 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Is this really any different to the Stadler FLIRT and its power module? OK, no low-floor benefit, though.

Yes, I would have preferred a fleet of Stadlers, but this would do the job.

Meerkat · 12 Jan 2019

If fuel cells are so cool and these chemical plants have ‘waste’ hydrogen why aren’t they just putting fuel cells in at the chemical plant and selling electricity to the grid?

xotGD · 12 Jan 2019

Meerkat said:
If fuel cells are so cool and these chemical plants have ‘waste’ hydrogen why aren’t they just putting fuel cells in at the chemical plant and selling electricity to the grid?

Because industry typically requires a 2 year payback on investment on any 'nice to have' project. Therefore they just carry on burning the hydrogen as fuel gas on site.

Meerkat · 12 Jan 2019

xotGD said:
Because industry typically requires a 2 year payback on investment on any 'nice to have' project. Therefore they just carry on burning the hydrogen as fuel gas on site.

Would have thought someone with access to funding (private equity etc) would have knocked up a deal to do it.

js1000 · 12 Jan 2019

whhistle said:
I can't see anyone actually liking the idea of a 321 being in service for another 10/20 years, compared with having a brand new train.
But then if they change the cab/front end and really refresh the interiors, it could be a winner. At what cost though?

There was a document some time ago about the 319s and Parcers receiving a new front end, thus suggesting to the public it is a brand new train:

If the 321s were to be paired to increase capacity, could be a good way to stick in a connection between them both.

I thought that but the 321 Renatus project shows you can polish a turd. It's just up to the ROSCO and TOC to pull their finger and actually modernise the units for the 21st century. (i.e. air con, LED lighting, seats at right height, USB/charging sockets etc). Too many are too stingy.

Below is a 319 as is and a refurbished 321 "Renatus" - both were introduced in the same period. The transformation is remarkable when the effort is put in.

Meerkat · 13 Jan 2019

I thought the Renatus I went on wasn’t very impressive. The floor covering and wall surfaces had the aura of wipe clean cheap cafe. Might partly have been the tone of the lights which was more bright security than welcoming.
Probably less obvious if they are busy though.

Alstom Class 321 Hydrogen 'Breeze' Updates & Discussion

Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

On Moderation

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member