TT-ONR-NRN
Established Member
Long term, hydrogen trains are not cheap.Electrifying to the first road bridge on the branch and using BMUs would be cheaper and quicker still.
Long term, hydrogen trains are not cheap.Electrifying to the first road bridge on the branch and using BMUs would be cheaper and quicker still.
So exactly like diesel trains then. Perhaps the ranges will be different but the concept is still the same.Won't refuelling the depots be the key issue with Hydrogen powered trains, thus they need to be operated near a source of the fuel, hence talk about routes in areas like Teeside, rather than quiet branch lines in the southeast
So exactly like diesel trains then. Perhaps the ranges will be different but the concept is still the same.
Not necessarily. The gold plated answer to "how do we power trains" is electrification but even if we started tomorrow we are unlikely to get close to electrifying the whole of the UK within the next 40 years. By that time all the current new DMUs/bi-modes will be life expired and with some lines never making the case to be electrified we have to power trains some other way. Add in the Government's reluctance at buying anymore DMUs/DEMUs (unless there are guarantees for conversion later in life), solutions are required sooner rather than later. Battery definitely has its place (branch lines in Devon/Cornwall, Thames valley, etc) but for the longer medium speed lines they are not the answer. Hydrogen provides a clean alternative solution to power those trains on the longer medium-speed lines which are either towards the back of the queue for electrification or realistically where its never going to happen. It is by no means the perfect solution for this but its what we have with the current technology with plenty of room for improvement.
Agreed everything should have panto well and 3rd rail retrofitment options as well (some what easier).Surely these should be built with a pantograph well, and the fittings for a pan, if not the pan itself. It is safe to say that 25kV overhead is the standard system in the UK, so any rail vehicle with electric traction motors should be compatible with or convertible to 25kV - which needs a pantograph. as the roof is an integral part of a vehicle it needs to be "designed in" from the start.
IMHO the published image is based on an MoU so not a complete design at all and really an artists impression. Can't wait too see the electro battery version of the train which is the one to get the orders in.
You also have the option of producing green hydrogen on-site at the depot via electrolysis. You just need power and water (and space).The key difference is that the infrastructure to deliver Diesel to refuelling points is well established, relatively safe, and relatively space efficient.
Hydrogen fuelling infrastructure is not well established, and (if you're doing it with HGVs, rather than pipelines) not very space efficient at all
Long term, they will get cheaper. Same as electric vehicles, wind turbines, photo voltaic cells, etc.Long term, hydrogen trains are not cheap.
This is where I feel hydrogen has issues- using a waste product that would otherwise just be burnt off of course is great, but fundamentally what's being done here is to use it as a battery, just instead of an electrolyte you're using hydrogen. And I'm not sure that's either a) cheaper or b) more efficient. The advantage it has is quick 'fueling', which of course is not to be sniffed at, but would the cost of hydrogen be less than just having more batteries?You also have the option of producing green hydrogen on-site at the depot via electrolysis. You just need power and water (and space).
But the operating cost as seen by the TOC will always be higher than electric, battery, diesel and bi-mode, both now and in the longer term hence it is the power mode of last resort.You also have the option of producing green hydrogen on-site at the depot via electrolysis. You just need power and water (and space).
Long term, they will get cheaper. Same as electric vehicles, wind turbines, photo voltaic cells, etc.
Up for exhibition purposes.Don’t think there’s any plans for hydrogen units in Scotland, so can’t see these appear up here unless they’re on a trial/exhibition run.
Unless you consider ETCSAs an aside, this is the first instance of old and new Alstom in the UK working together…
That's true, although it's been perfected over the years to make it as safe as possible and I'm sure Hydrogen will see similar effort to streamline it.The key difference is that the infrastructure to deliver Diesel to refuelling points is well established, relatively safe, and relatively space efficient.
You missed a 3rd option, which is on site production, which I think is how Shell do it over here. Of course this would probably take up more space than the diesel but you work that in and it solves the supply issue.Hydrogen fuelling infrastructure is not well established, and (if you're doing it with HGVs, rather than pipelines) not very space efficient at all
Unpopular opinion, but those will be good with South Western Railway's West of England line services. 2/3 doors would do good for the busy route, and I know they may be recently refurbished, but it's about time the 159/158's get replaced by something newer.Alstom and Eversholt have signed an agreement aimed at delivering the first brand-new hydrogen multiple units (HMU) in the UK.
Based on the Aventra platform, the initial contract covers the manufacture and delivery of 10 3-car units.
View attachment 105404
A quote from the press release linked above:
It would be a complete waste if it is. Getting tired of trains not even close to being life expired being wasted and ditched because new trains make projects look goodThe Hydrogen 321s are related to these Aventras. Given the little evident progress on the Hydrogen 321s, one does have to wonder if that's either been quietly ditched or now planned only as a testbed (much like the converted 314).
Given the fact that none of the Class 799s are actually being powered by hydrogen yet, I’d say that starting from scratch is more than reasonable.It would be a complete waste if it is. Getting tired of trains not even close to being life expired being wasted and ditched because new trains make projects look good
Bare in mind that the 799s are porterbrooks project. Not Eversholts. there project is the class 600 breezeGiven the fact that none of the Class 799s are actually being powered by hydrogen yet, I’d say that starting from scratch is more than reasonable
My employer does a lot of work with PorterbrookBare in mind that the 799s are porterbrooks project. Not Eversholts. there project is the class 600 breeze
Would there be any benefit to having a class 755 style engine unit (or hydrogen tanks) as although it would make the unit a little longer, it could provide space for more hydrogen?
My experience of hydrogen use in industry was that the hydrogen was delivered in banks of cylinders built onto an artic trailer which arrived on site and was then coupled into the site system in a concrete blast bay (3metre high concrete walls with no roof). Where the hydrogen was used in the building was designed with large ventilation louvres and ‘blow-out panels’ in the walls in case of an explosion. If I remember correctly, the roof over those rooms was designed differently with a weak section so that it would blow-off without compromising the rest of the building. This was in a process which used the gas in a chemical reaction rather than burning it so similar to a hydrogen fuel-cell. Hydrogen is extremely searching and joints in pipe work systems are very difficult to seal so in that respect is nothing like diesel. Production on site would be possible but would require a lot of associated plant such as compressors and heat exchangers and of course suitable storage facilities. I would expect that road delivery would be the safest and most cost effective option for railway usage.That's true, although it's been perfected over the years to make it as safe as possible and I'm sure Hydrogen will see similar effort to streamline it.
You missed a 3rd option, which is on site production, which I think is how Shell do it over here. Of course this would probably take up more space than the diesel but you work that in and it solves the supply issue.
Long term, they will get cheaper. Same as electric vehicles, wind turbines, photo voltaic cells, etc.
It doesn't solve the need for a very large compressor, the economics (Capex or Opex) of which won't improve.That's true, although it's been perfected over the years to make it as safe as possible and I'm sure Hydrogen will see similar effort to streamline it.
You missed a 3rd option, which is on site production, which I think is how Shell do it over here. Of course this would probably take up more space than the diesel but you work that in and it solves the supply issue.
In 15 or 20 years time there won't be a natural gas network. Just a hydrogen network.Even if/when the hydrogen fuel-cells get cheaper, they still need fuel.
Hydrogen as a fuel is only cheap where it's available as a waste product, otherwise it's expensive to make. It's also then expensive to transport.*
Manufactured hydrogen is going to be more expensive than electricity.
Solar-pv doesn't need a fuel. Cover a depot roof in panels, charge batteries on-site during the day, then use those batteries to re-charge the trains overnight.
It may not provide all the power needed, but it's much much cheaper than making hydrogen on-site.
*you can't just move hydrogen in the existing gas network. You can blend up to ~15%. Beyond that & the pipes themselves are affected, & new compressors are needed. Also, everything connected to the network needs to work with hydrogen.
Using 'spare' renewable energy to make it is being looked at, but that would most likely be at the substations where the large wind farms connect to the grid, & then be used in fuel-cells to generate electricity when there is a surge in demand. Zero transport costs then.
In 15 or 20 years time there won't be a natural gas network. Just a hydrogen network.
It's the future. Zero carbon at the point of use.
That’s a big leap! The current gas network isn’t suitable for hydrogen so a new one would be required. Who would have the spare cash to fund it?In 15 or 20 years time there won't be a natural gas network. Just a hydrogen network.
It's the future. Zero carbon at the point of use.
As @Bletchleyite said, what matters is the source of the hydrogen. 'grey' hydrogen, which is much, much cheaper than 'green' hydrogen has a carbon impact several times that of fossil fuels (mainly because it's made using fossil fuel, and is a nightmare to transport)In 15 or 20 years time there won't be a natural gas network. Just a hydrogen network.
It's the future. Zero carbon at the point of use.
It will be low carbon. Either blue or green.CO2 doesnt matter at the point of use, it matters overall. Particulates and NOx matter at the point of use, and natural gas emits very low levels of either. So hydrogen replacing natural gas only makes sense if it is produced in a low carbon manner.
The distribution network, once fully converted to plastic, will be fine for hydrogen. Replacement of iron with plastic is happening anyway.That’s a big leap! The current gas network isn’t suitable for hydrogen so a new one would be required. Who would have the spare cash to fund it?
I still don't see how you'd change it over. Presumably if one day you switched off the gas, and switched on the hydrogen, everyone's cookers and boilers would blow up. So presumably everyone would need to buy duel fuel appliances before hand, so why not just buy electric. Even green hydrogen isn't as good as electric, because its so inefficient to produceIt will be low carbon. Either blue or green.
The distribution network, once fully converted to plastic, will be fine for hydrogen. Replacement of iron with plastic is happening anyway.
Some of the higher pressure transmission lines are made of grades of steel where hydrogen embrittlement could be a problem, but certainly not all. National Grid are performing research to investigate the suitability for conversion.
You convert area by area. Just as we did when switching from Towns Gas to natural gas back in the day. Turn off the gas, convert the appliances, turn on the hydrogen.I still don't see how you'd change it over. Presumably if one day you switched off the gas, and switched on the hydrogen, everyone's cookers and boilers would blow up. So presumably everyone would need to buy duel fuel appliances before hand, so why not just buy electric. Even green hydrogen isn't as good as electric, because its so inefficient to produce
However the Scottish carbon capture cluster, with its associated hydrogen production, is only on the reserve list.If they're coming to Scotland, isn't Aberdeen the obvious destination? We're a hydrogen hub and already power buses with Hydrogen. 3 car units perfect for Inverness and the Inverurie - Montrose service...