Bionic Duckweed Rears its ugly head again

[Energy]

The iLint will do 140kph, which is entirely adequate for just about any UK rail application of hydrogen, so that doesn't really wash as an argument

For some reason I thought they only did 62mph, not sure where my memory got that from!

 

[Bald Rick]

and don't use the not so green materials batteries use

I’d say mining and refining a few hundred tonnes of Lithium etc for a fleet of battery trains on certain routes would be “greener” than mining and refining thousands of tonnes of copper, aluminium and steel for the OLE...

 

[ABB125]

I’d say mining and refining a few hundred tonnes of Lithium etc for a fleet of battery trains on certain routes would be “greener” than mining and refining thousands of tonnes of copper, aluminium and steel for the OLE...

But surely that only applies to the "ship mooring line" GWML structures?

 

[Carlisle]

“greener” than mining and refining thousands of tonnes of copper, aluminium and steel for the OLE...

Isn’t it theoretically possible to factor in the use of some recycled metals

 

[Bald Rick]

Isn’t it theoretically possible to factor in the use of some recycled metals

Indeed so, as is the case for batteries.

 

[MarkyT]

I wonder why the Signal Engineers were so concerned about their circuits being single, not double, cut and the possibility of false feeding in the event of cable damage by augers if their cables were in troughing?

Single cut circuits are always a greater risk clearly as it only requires contacts in one pole of the circuit to be bypassed to produce a potential false relay energisation. By the time I started in Reading Drawing Office in the early 1980s, any new circuits provided as part of a new scheme or alteration would be double-cut, but I think other regions had adopted this rule earlier due to the extra risks of electrification and all the potential current fault paths available where everything is bonded. The big buried cables might sometimes carry conventional relay circuits in some pairs for longer distance functions like override controls for the remote interlockings, emergency alarms for box to box comms if usual methods failed, and sometimes certain route locking functions for bidirectional running between remote relay interlockings, as is common on the GWML west of Didcot.

I know from personal experience that GEML(E&W), ECML and large parts of the WCML lineside cables of all types were in troughing, what other mainlines direct buried cables? I know a number of secondary lines mole plowed cables - I had a hand in quite a bit of that as well - but I was under the impression that direct burial on mainlines was a GW thing.

In my experience is it is mixed and the more rural a line is the more likely the cables are buried, especially where there's little intermediate signalling and spacing between equipment is great. There's a security aspect here as well as buried cables are much less likely to be found and removed by metal thieves. Still, for WR, burying the large trunk cables remained policy even on large mainline schemes until well into the 1970s while you are correct that elsewhere they had moved on generally to putting everything in the surface troughing. By the time of the West of England resignalling scheme (Westbury and Exeter) in the early 80s, all new cables WERE in surface concrete troughing however, and all new line circuits were provided double cut. Concrete troughing routes that are sized appropriately for all the cabling can be very hard work to squeeze into the cess sometimes, and potentially very expensive however, something which no doubt had crossed the WRs collective cost-conscious mind, and mole ploughing the largest of the cables first was a much cheaper option. One estimator I worked with reckoned that on a typical 80s relay-based scheme (without buried cables) the costs of the troughing and cables alone could add up to around one-third of the entire cost of the project. That was in fact their ball park high level estimation methodology - work out the extent of the cable routes required and extrapolate from there!

 

[Energy]

I’d say mining and refining a few hundred tonnes of Lithium etc for a fleet of battery trains on certain routes would be “greener” than mining and refining thousands of tonnes of copper, aluminium and steel for the OLE...

OHLE lasts a lot longer than batteries.

 

[apk55]

Charging and discharging a battery uses energy. Typically a battery system is at best 80% efficient although this may be worse if high charge/ discharge rates are involved. In comparison a decent electrification system can be 95% efficient.

 

[Bald Rick]

OHLE lasts a lot longer than batteries.

Fair point.

Charging and discharging a battery uses energy. Typically a battery system is at best 80% efficient although this may be worse if high charge/ discharge rates are involved. In comparison a decent electrification system can be 95% efficient.

Suggest you check your sources. Plenty of academic papers out there that have measured 99%+ efficiency for charge / discharge cycles of Lithium batteries.

 

[trebor79]

Lithium batteries also degrade quite quickly, whereas the contact wire can last for a couple of decades, especially on lower trafficked routes where these battery solutions are suggested, whilst the catenary and masts will be good for many decades.

 

[edwin_m]

By the time of the West of England resignalling scheme (Westbury and Exeter) in the early 80s, all new cables WERE in surface concrete troughing however, and all new line circuits were provided double cut.

Shame their control areas weren't to be electrified (unless there's some overlap round Newbury?).

Lithium batteries also degrade quite quickly, whereas the contact wire can last for a couple of decades, especially on lower trafficked routes where these battery solutions are suggested, whilst the catenary and masts will be good for many decades.

At the end of that time the copper is very easily recyclable, although a proportion of it will have worn away. Most of the steelwork lasts longer but can also be recycled. Recycling a battery of any type is going to be more difficult.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

A classic case of the design contractor not doing enough on the ground survey work then internally outsourcing the bulk of the detailed design work overseas to people who have/had never to the London let alone Gospel Oak to Barking resulting in an unbuildable/unworkable design. Then there were the rule change issues and all the other issues faced by other schemes.

Adapting the classic surveyors /civils saying "You pay for the survey now or even more later"

It was more than just that. Barking to Gospel Oak is a route of two halves; one elevated, one mainly at ground level or in a cutting. In Walthamstow, where the line is in a cutting, it was decided to lower the track rather than reshape the bridges and so a six month blockade was imposed. During that period, they should have erected the masts on the elevated section but they didn't. When at last the Walthamstow section was completed, they realised they hadn't done the elevated section and a second blockade became necessary! Bombardier then entered the fray. Their trains were several months late and so a further delay occurred.

It is not surprising that civil servants are unenthusiastic about electrification projects.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But yet we've got East West Rail which has not acquired any rolling stock yet and is not open[1] yet, and so those things wouldn't cause any problems for anyone if it was to be electrified before opening, and would have many benefits to doing so. I did think the reason for not being bothered about it was because of the early proposal for it to be run through to/from Marylebone which would have to be DMUs, but that has long since gone away (and applied only to one of the proposed three trains per hour anyway). It's absolutely nuts that we are building a self-contained railway to be diesel in 2020.

[1] Except of course the Marston Vale, but only about 4 or 5 people would notice if that was closed for a while

 

[trebor79]

At the end of that time the copper is very easily recyclable, although a proportion of it will have worn away. Most of the steelwork lasts longer but can also be recycled. Recycling a battery of any type is going to be more difficult.

I read an article somewhere a while ago that suggested most electric vehicle batteries will be incinerated at end of life. How true that is I'm not sure.

 

[The Ham]

I’d say mining and refining a few hundred tonnes of Lithium etc for a fleet of battery trains on certain routes would be “greener” than mining and refining thousands of tonnes of copper, aluminium and steel for the OLE...

Although you still have lower energy efficiencies with batteries compared to OHLE.

Not as bad as with Hydrogen, but still probably enough that on busier lines the extra savings are worth building the cables.

Obviously the opposite is also true, that where lines are lightly used that other fuel sources are worth using (or at least considering).

However it all highlights why road travel (which also has a higher rolling resistance to rail as well) is never going to be as green as rail travel as it's likely to need to use batteries and hydrogen for much more of the travel than the railways will.

 

[DerekC]

I suspect that in the post-Covid, low carbon world, any route that doesn't justify electrification will soon find itself struggling for survival. A lightly loaded train (which is what you had on many rural routes even pre-covid), no matter however it is powered, is not a very efficient way of carrying people around. I hate that thought because I am as keen as any to see the network survive in its current shape, but I can't escape it.

 

[Bald Rick]

Although you still have lower energy efficiencies with batteries compared to OHLE.

But, as above, negligibly so.

 

[edwin_m]

But, as above, negligibly so.

For a high speed or heavy freight application you'd have to have so many batteries that more batteries would be needed to provide the power to accelerate all the batteries. Roughly the same applies to hydrogen tanks. There wouldn't be much space/weight available to carry anything useful.

 

[MarkyT]

Shame their control areas weren't to be electrified (unless there's some overlap round Newbury?).

No overlap I believe. In most other respects, the 80s WR signalling WASN'T designed for OHLE unfortunately (track circuit types and configuration, signal structures etc), so when wires eventually arrive in the peninsula, there'll be a lot of work to do, although full resignalling should be more than due by then again anyway! Some parts of the Bristol mainline were adapted for electrification before it happened. For example Didcot - Swindon was resignalled with SSI in the early 90s with full electrification provision, including the signalling structures; that was the so-called 'ESI(P)' scheme (electricity supply industry (privatisation)), a freight sponsored project to provide additional running lines between Wantage Road and Challow and make some detailed layout changes to cater for coal trains from Avonmouth running round just to the west of Didcot station.

 

[edwin_m]

a freight sponsored project to provide additional running lines between Wantage Road and Challow and make some detailed layout changes to cater for coal trains from Avonmouth running round just to the west of Didcot station.

Of which neither the coal trains nor the power station still exist. But I guess the railway got something out of it.

 

[Class 170101]

Hydrogen and Batteries would be better in the main as a separate function from the railway feeding into its supply (like Sizewell or Drax) rather than being on train in the main in my view due to greater efficiencies. However the politicans seem intent on passing the costs to the private sector, the train builders and lessors rather than Network Rail in the public sector and the OLE wires or 3rd Rail.

 

[trebor79]

Hydrogen and Batteries would be better in the main as a separate function from the railway feeding into its supply (like Sizewell or Drax) rather than being on train in the main in my view due to greater efficiencies. However the politicans seem intent on passing the costs to the private sector, the train builders and lessors rather than Network Rail in the public sector and the OLE wires or 3rd Rail.

What? Why would you erect catenary and then spend even more money hooking batteries up to it?

 

[DerekC]

Hydrogen and Batteries would be better in the main as a separate function from the railway feeding into its supply (like Sizewell or Drax) rather than being on train in the main in my view due to greater efficiencies. However the politicans seem intent on passing the costs to the private sector, the train builders and lessors rather than Network Rail in the public sector and the OLE wires or 3rd Rail.

What? Why would you erect catenary and then spend even more money hooking batteries up to it?

The idea is to store surplus renewable energy when supply exceeds demand and use it when demand exceeds supply.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

What? Why would you erect catenary and then spend even more money hooking batteries up to it?

Because you can collect energy from regenerative braking, storing it into batteries and then use it for powering trains - an ideal spot for such battery storage in general would be a site like the Lickey Incline. It has the potential to manage the demands placed on the National Grid by further electrification, and indeed, has the potential to use the AC OLE network to move power around overnight to smooth out demand during the peak hours.

It's not entirely clear whether such storage would be best within the 25kV network, on the wider HV transmission grid, or a bit of both.

 

[Class 170101]

What? Why would you erect catenary and then spend even more money hooking batteries up to it?

No batteries attached to the Caternary.

The idea is to store surplus renewable energy when supply exceeds demand and use it when demand exceeds supply.

Indeed and the power industry is in the better place to do this and then feeding the railways with this power if an when the railways needs it as it does whether feeding from Drax or Sizewell (or elsewhere).

Because you can collect energy from regenerative braking, storing it into batteries and then use it for powering trains - an ideal spot for such battery storage in general would be a site like the Lickey Incline. It has the potential to manage the demands placed on the National Grid by further electrification, and indeed, has the potential to use the AC OLE network to move power around overnight to smooth out demand during the peak hours.

It's not entirely clear whether such storage would be best within the 25kV network, on the wider HV transmission grid, or a bit of both.

Probably the wider HV transmission grid I would have thought given they are into power as their job unlike NR (railways are their thing). Also it does mean a wider use of this power rather than just keeping it within the railway whether the railway needs it at given time or not.

 

[trebor79]

Because you can collect energy from regenerative braking, storing it into batteries and then use it for powering trains - an ideal spot for such battery storage in general would be a site like the Lickey Incline. It has the potential to manage the demands placed on the National Grid by further electrification, and indeed, has the potential to use the AC OLE network to move power around overnight to smooth out demand during the peak hours.

Or you just do what happens now, and use that power to boil kettles, run TVs, run factories etc.
Energy storage has a place, but there's no reason it needs to be directly connected to railway catenary.

On your second point, 25kV isn't the best choice for long distance power balancing, and it would be complicated by the fact there will still be some trains running, with a very peaky power demand. I also don't think the ECML, for example is a single circuit all the way from London to Edinburgh, it's a lot of much smaller sections separated by neutral sections.
It's designed so that feeder station feeds a single section, so by definition it's useless for moving power around the country.
I'm puzzled as to why we need some sort of not very good duplicate for the National Grid?

The logical place to locate batteries or other energy storage is near to very large renewable. It can already be moved wherever it's required by the grid, railway electrification schemes are designed for powering trains, not duplicating the grid.

 

[MarkyT]

Because you can collect energy from regenerative braking, storing it into batteries and then use it for powering trains - an ideal spot for such battery storage in general would be a site like the Lickey Incline. It has the potential to manage the demands placed on the National Grid by further electrification, and indeed, has the potential to use the AC OLE network to move power around overnight to smooth out demand during the peak hours.

It's not entirely clear whether such storage would be best within the 25kV network, on the wider HV transmission grid, or a bit of both.

London Underground looked at installing flywheel storage for this purpose a long time ago. Stations were suggested as a good location for such distributed storage as, particularly on the Tube, there's a lot of stopping and starting in the vicinity! I don't think it went any further than outline studies though. Such a solution's time may have come now although it may be better to incorporate moderate storage capacity on-board for similar purposes that would also give an emergency get to next station capability in the event of a supply outage and to be able to shunt around depots and sidings without the risk to the staff of live conductor rails in such areas.

 

[Bald Rick]

Such a solution's time may have come now although it may be better to incorporate moderate storage capacity on-board for similar purposes that would also give an emergency get to next station capability in the event of a supply outage and to be able to shunt around depots and sidings without the risk to the staff of live conductor rails in such areas.

Indeed. A 200kw battery pack weighing about a ton would be very useful for a ‘get you out of jail’ use - it would give a four car unit about half an hour at reduced speed. More than enough.

 

[The Ham]

Indeed. A 200kw battery pack weighing about a ton would be very useful for a ‘get you out of jail’ use - it would give a four car unit about half an hour at reduced speed. More than enough.

Presumably it could also be useful if the train was stuck without grid supply to keep the heating/cooling/lights running, even though you would want to try and get it moving ASAP so that you didn't have stuck passengers for too long.

 

[trebor79]

How often are people actually stuck on the tube to make it worthwhile to pay for the capital cost and power cost of hauling a couple of tonnes of battery on every train?