• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

RIA letter on Electrification

Status
Not open for further replies.

RLBH

Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
962
I think you are seriously overlooking the explosion risk associated with hydrogen?

I know where I sooner strike a match, given the choice of a room swimming in diesel or one with hydrogen gas present.
In an enclosed space, yes. But in open air, after a fairly short time the hydrogen has cleared off to the upper atmosphere somewhere, removing the risk altogether. You can achieve the same effect in a room by ventilating it. The diesel will still be there waiting for a suitable ignition source until you go in and physically clean it up.

The issue with hydrogen isn't massive spills, but the fact that it's almost impossible to contain it and the fact that a small leak from a pressurised system is liable to create a very hot, almost invisible, blowtorch-like flame.

The risk profile of hydrogen is very different from that of liquid fuels, making comparison difficult. And it's quite natural as humans for us to readily identify the increased risks without recognising the reduction in other areas.

To stir the pot: has anyone looked at ammonia as an energy source? It's getting a lot of attention in the maritime industry at the moment because it's much easier to handle than hydrogen and has much better energy density. A recent study indicated that ammonia-fuelled ships are the most credible way to decarbonise shipping. Obvioulsy it's got the same fundamental issue as hydrogen in that it's a store of energy generated elsewhere.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
There are two kinds of energy density. There is energy/mass and energy/volume - I seem to recall seeing a chart somewhere comparing batteries and hydrogen on both these measures but cannot find it now. If I recall correctly, on one of the two energy density measures, one of the two low-carbon options (hydrogen and batteries, I forget which) wasn't far off the energy density of diesel, but neither came close on the other energy density measure.
Hydrogen beats diesel in terms of specific energy (energy/kg) whilst batteries lag massively. In terms of energy density (energy/M3) liquid hydrocarbons trounce pretty much everything
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,806
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
To stir the pot: has anyone looked at ammonia as an energy source? It's getting a lot of attention in the maritime industry at the moment because it's much easier to handle than hydrogen and has much better energy density. A recent study indicated that ammonia-fuelled ships are the most credible way to decarbonise shipping. Obvioulsy it's got the same fundamental issue as hydrogen in that it's a store of energy generated elsewhere.
We are getting OT but ammonia has the advantage that if it spills it as at least a fertilizer! So environment wise not bad!
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
What are the odds of there being an exact 2:1 ratio required for an explosion?

Hydrogen has a wide flammability range, from 4% to 75% by volume in air, and 18.3% to 59% for detonability. By comparison, Petrol's flammability limits are 1.4% to 7.6%
 

Adsy125

Member
Joined
22 Dec 2016
Messages
421
We are getting OT but ammonia has the advantage that if it spills it as at least a fertilizer! So environment wise not bad!
Ammonia is nasty stuff, especially in high concentrations, you really don't want to spill it!
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,416
That was likely because there was a BR infrastructure that captured all benefits of electrification and thus would make a convincing case to the Treasury and other actors.
Once the industry fragmented all that went out the window.
Does that really work - DfT surely gain all the benefits that BR did?
There is the issue of disruption payments, but they aren’t all bad (ensuring that projects are worth the disruption to current customers), and the general hiatus whilst privatisation took place.
 

InTheEastMids

Member
Joined
31 Jan 2016
Messages
718
Ammonia is nasty stuff, especially in high concentrations, you really don't want to spill it!

Plus ammonia synthesis is incredibly energy intensive and is currently a major source of CO2. You need to clean this up whilst increasing production significantly for it to be more than an extremely niche solution
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,005
This science lab apologism is totally OT. There was no serious hydrogen plan, wake up, it was kicking the conversation into the long grass. Like the 'digital railway' or the new digital technologies for Northern Ireland / Brexit customs. Diversionary chat.

Diesel and electric are what we have, the actual innovation being bi-modes and repurposing 319s/D-Stock. Much more humble, but actually true. So can we carry on with established facts?
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,806
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
Ammonia is nasty stuff, especially in high concentrations, you really don't want to spill it!
I am a research chemist. I was trying to be sort of tongue in cheek. Sorry. Liquid ammonia is injected direct into the soil in the USA as an intensive form of farming particularly for soybeans and corn production
 
Last edited:

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,806
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
This science lab apologism is totally OT. There was no serious hydrogen plan, wake up, it was kicking the conversation into the long grass. Like the 'digital railway' or the new digital technologies for Northern Ireland / Brexit customs. Diversionary chat.

Diesel and electric are what we have, the actual innovation being bi-modes and repurposing 319s/D-Stock. Much more humble, but actually true. So can we carry on with established facts?

I do agree. I think to get back on topic, the RIA letter asks for a rolling program of electrification. Bimodes help enormously with that strategy. There are many documents that show that for freight they are the only realistic options with biodiesel also an intermediate solution. Battery is a better option than hydrogen.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,629
Does that really work - DfT surely gain all the benefits that BR did?
They can do, but only by a series of complex contracts with all sorts of moving parts that are difficult to agree.
And the TOCs will make sure they get some benefits to capture for their shareholders.

It's much less simple than "our projections show we can delay spending £x of public money on new diesel rolling stock and we project a net reduction in subsidy of £y per annum moving forwards".
THat is much easier to get the Treasury to go for.

I am a research chemist. I was trying to be sort of tongue in cheek. Sorry
The fact remains that industry does have substantial experience in the safe handling of ammonia by a wide range of people.
Much more so than cryogenic liquid hydrogen or similar novel fuels, where experience is essentially nonexistant outside of rocketry.

Many farmers do fertilise directly with anhydrous ammonia in some parts of the world.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,806
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
The fact remains that industry does have substantial experience in the safe handling of ammonia by a wide range of people.
Much more so than cryogenic liquid hydrogen or similar novel fuels, where experience is essentially nonexistant outside of rocketry.

Many farmers do fertilise directly with anhydrous ammonia in some parts of the world.
Exactly
 

WAO

Member
Joined
10 Mar 2019
Messages
657
I do agree. I think to get back on topic, the RIA letter asks for a rolling program of electrification. Bimodes help enormously with that strategy. There are many documents that show that for freight they are the only realistic options with biodiesel also an intermediate solution. Battery is a better option than hydrogen.

I think your point is very important.

Bi-modes make full use of the wires even where branches aren't electrified. They also work better, cheaper and cleaner from the juice rather than diesel. Even partial electrification is then favoured. One thinks of Manchester/Liverpool to Chester via Frodsham; although many trains go on to North Wales, Class 769's would then give better service. Another case would be the Bedwyn stopping trains which use expensive 5-car class 800's - for wayside stations! Here wiring would allow much more suitable EMU's to be used and let B&H bi-modes stretch their legs. Wiring beyond last wired stations would allow better, electric acceleration/regeneration with changeover only at full speed.

One hopes also that the class 88's are now being used for their "last mile" capability. Any news?

Fingers crossed for the RIA,

WAO
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
One hopes also that the class 88's are now being used for their "last mile" capability. Any news?
If I recall correctly the north Wales coast railway notice board website has shown a few pictures in the past of class 88s being used on the nuclear flask trains from Valley. Rather more than a mile away from the wires that was!
 
Joined
24 Jun 2014
Messages
432
Location
Derby
Yes privatisation (or more accurately the fragmented structure) cocked up what would have been an ongoing process, and the railways had other pressing issues, but there was also a lack of political interest under Labour, the ambitious Adonis plan didn't emerge until they had been in power for 12 years.

And to be fair HS1 was built in the 2000s, so it wasn't as if the rail infrastructure was completely fossilised.

But do you not think that major electrification schemes would have been difficult to justify during the Labour government period until Adonis published his plan?

BR and the DfT/Treasury had more or less finalised an electrification rolling programme when the Conservatives came to power in 1979, and this was scrapped by the Thatcher government; however, electrification, on a scheme-by-scheme basis - continued, but there was also a massive DMU replacement programme during that government which resulted in the vast majority of first generation DMUs being replaced. Then, by the time the Blair government was elected, privatisation was so far advanced and trains like Voyagers and Turbostars for MML had been ordered, electrification couldn't really be justified; moreover, HSTs were only half way through their expected lives.

The Adonis plan really centred around a sensible question; what can we do with all of these 319 EMUs which still have a lot of life in them but aren't suitable for the enhanced Thameslink project? So from that, a cascade was developed, which seemed sensible at the time; however, if I remember correctly, Adonis envisaged that the 319s would go through something like a Renatus rebuild before going north or to the Thames Valley, thereby giving these areas what would seem to be "new" trains to most passengers, but on the cheap.
 
Joined
24 Jun 2014
Messages
432
Location
Derby
The March 2020 'Modern Railways' reports that Northern have submitted plans to the DfT for the use of around 12 'Breeze' hydrogen units on services from Middlesbrough; it's proposed that a maintenance/fuelling facility specifically for these will be built at Lackenby, and as the trains will only have a range of about 600 miles they will likely return to the depot each night. Services proposed for operate by these units - which will be formed from 321s with one coach removed and hydrogen storage presumably above floor as the carrying capacity will be approximately the same as for a 2-car DMU - are from Middlesbrough to Nunthorpe, Bishop Auckland, and Saltburn, but the possibility of operating to Whitby and along the Durham coast is also mentioned. The trains will be converted to hydrogen by Alstom at Widnes, so I guess they will be using what has been proved to work in Germany. The timescale for these is unclear; the article reports that the first hydrogen train could be ready for testing in June 2021, but this is based upon the construction of the Lackenby facility starting in January of this year.

Some 331s will have batteries added to work the Windermere branch.

What is a reasonable distance for a battery enhanced EMU to operate beyond the wires? 'Modern Railways' states that the Windermere fleet will be created by adding a fourth battery-carrying car to an existing 3-car set, and that batteries will also be installed beneath the existing centre car; if this works OK on the Windermere branch, could similar conversions work Manchester Airport - Barrow services north of Carnforth, or would this be too far even if a rapid charge facility was to be installed at Barrow? If not - and using this service as an example - would electrification between Carnforth and Arnside be sufficient to enable Manchester Airport - Barrow trains to go over to battery enhanced EMUs?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
What is a reasonable distance for a battery enhanced EMU to operate beyond the wires? 'Modern Railways' states that the Windermere fleet will be created by adding a fourth battery-carrying car to an existing 3-car set, and that batteries will also be installed beneath the existing centre car; if this works OK on the Windermere branch, could similar conversions work Manchester Airport - Barrow services north of Carnforth, or would this be too far even if a rapid charge facility was to be installed at Barrow? If not - and using this service as an example - would electrification between Carnforth and Arnside be sufficient to enable Manchester Airport - Barrow trains to go over to battery enhanced EMUs?
The same article says that the batteries will be enough for one trip from Oxenholme to Windermere and back, but not for two consecutive return trips which some diagrams do today. So there would need to be a charging facility at Windermere or some timetable changes, for example to give enough time to charge off the wires at Oxenholme. I think from this we can infer that this solution isn't suitable for the Carnforth-Barrow run, where even a one-way journey is a lot longer than Oxenholme to Windermere and back.
 
Joined
24 Jun 2014
Messages
432
Location
Derby
The same article says that the batteries will be enough for one trip from Oxenholme to Windermere and back, but not for two consecutive return trips which some diagrams do today. So there would need to be a charging facility at Windermere or some timetable changes, for example to give enough time to charge off the wires at Oxenholme. I think from this we can infer that this solution isn't suitable for the Carnforth-Barrow run, where even a one-way journey is a lot longer than Oxenholme to Windermere and back.

True; but aren't there some quite steep gradients in the up direction? I remember going to Windermere in 1963 or 1964 behind a class 40, and from a standing start at Oxenholme it overshot the platform considerably at Kendal, and had to back in! From memory and from what I remember of the conversation I had with the person with me, the whistle of the engine could only be heard when it set off, so much of the speed gained between Oxenholme and Kendal was due to gravity.

Isn't the Barrow line relatively flat? As experiments were undertaken with an Electrostar on the Harwich branch, I wondered if any conclusions had actually been reached and published as to what was a reasonable distance for a battery enhanced EMU to run beyond the wires, or if there was some sort of formula to calculate how far an EMU with batteries could run, how gradient or stopping patterns affected range, etc, etc. And with something like the Matlock branch which is predominantly up-hill to Matlock, would it be safe to take the view that a battery powered overall journey could be longer (as gravity would help it back to Ambergate) than if the service being operated was undulating, or - as on the Windermere line - there are adverse gradients on the return leg?

I've got no idea whatsoever, and I wondered if anyone else knew; as I see it, battery enhancement of EMUs could potentially strengthen the case for electrification of some routes.

Just to give an example as an illustration, if the MML were to be electrified as originally planned, the Leicester - Lincoln service would run under the wires between Leicester and Nottingham; I know bi-modes have now been procured for LNER's London - Lincoln service, but if they hadn't could a case then be made to electrify between Newark and Lincoln, with both the Lincoln - London and Lincoln - Leicester services running as electrics as far as Newark? This would then require a battery enhanced EMU to have sufficient range to operate between Nottingham and the Newark Crossing; is such a distance possible? If the line through to Hull had been electrified as once suggested, could a battery enhanced EMU have sufficient range for Hull Trains still to run some services through to Beverley, or would an electric/diesel bi-mode - like the 802s they have procured - still be necessary?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Barrow line is certainly flatter than Windermere. However that also means that the train would use very little battery in the Windermere-bound direction - in fact it might be best not to fully charge it at Oxenholme so there is some spare for regeneration on the way. So the gradient effect cancels itself out to some extent.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
What is a reasonable distance for a battery enhanced EMU to operate beyond the wires?

That depends how many batteries you put on the train. There’s battery trains in Germany that can manage nearly 100 miles off the wires (Stadler Flirt Akku). There’s no reason why this wouldn’t be possible here. Evidently the 331s are being given sufficient batteries for one return trip (with some contingency). And I’m willing to bet they will perform much better than expected.

Gradients aren’t really an issue, assuming the train goes back from where it started from.
 

klass43

Member
Joined
20 Feb 2020
Messages
24
Location
UK
And yet she electrified the East Coast Mainline, built the Channel Tunnel, Thameslink and worked to get Crossrail started. It was John Major and Tony Blair who had no love for railways.

She was PM when the APT project was scrapped, which IMO was a big mistake, as it may have been the impetus for more electrification of lines with more curvature, e.g. MML and the line from London Paddington - Newbury - Plymouth - Penzance.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
She was PM when the APT project was scrapped, which IMO was a big mistake, as it may have been the impetus for more electrification of lines with more curvature, e.g. MML and the line from London Paddington - Newbury - Plymouth - Penzance.

The APT was partly predicated on MML electrification, as that is where all the hauled stock it was to replace was going.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,416
That depends how many batteries you put on the train. There’s battery trains in Germany that can manage nearly 100 miles off the wires (Stadler Flirt Akku). There’s no reason why this wouldn’t be possible here. Evidently the 331s are being given sufficient batteries for one return trip (with some contingency). And I’m willing to bet they will perform much better than expected.

Gradients aren’t really an issue, assuming the train goes back from where it started from.

How quickly do modern batteries decay? You don’t want to push the limit and then find you start running out of juice after a few months!
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
How quickly do modern batteries decay? You don’t want to push the limit and then find you start running out of juice after a few months!

Well, Tesla guarantee theirs to retain 70% of original capacity after 8 years regardless of the number of charge cycles. In reality most are doing much better than that. See the below article (far too long to quote, and with diagrams).
https://electrek.co/2018/04/14/tesla-battery-degradation-data/
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Well, Tesla guarantee theirs to retain 70% of original capacity after 8 years regardless of the number of charge cycles. In reality most are doing much better than that. See the below article (far too long to quote, and with diagrams).
https://electrek.co/2018/04/14/tesla-battery-degradation-data/
You can guarantee everyone else's will degrade faster than that, the rail industry traction electronics aren't renowned for being smooth (lots of very high speed fluctuations which won't agree with batteries) Tesla are a lot nicer to their batteries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top