The scenario... It's 2035 and battery technology (or mobile fusion or -ve strangelet reactors) is delivering exawatts to the traction motors with complete recharge times of less than 20 minutes. OLE is now redundant. There are only a few dewiring teams available so it's one line at a time. Which line is the first to lose its OLE or which line would you most like to see lose it's OLE first? GWML? ECML? WCML? Clacton & Walton?
-
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!
First line to be de-electrified.
- Thread starter McRhu
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
An odd prospect, but it'd be short branchlines that would go first - partially because they'd likely be the easiest to remove from the network from an electrical feeding point of view, but also because any sort of system still reliant on 'recharging' means that long distance, high speed railways would still need their OLE! Truly self-powered traction (your mobile fusion/ strangelet reactors) could change this, but given we're still waiting on the portable fission reactors that were supposed to be powering the flying cars of the 70s...
hexagon789
Veteran Member
Either short branches or perhaps third rail because the system is inferior to 25kV overhead?
I know the question is hypothetical but I think it is hard to see how battery technology could be so far advanced and green enough in manufacturing terms and resource requirements by 2035 to lead to the removal of continuous OHLE. We are going to have to be realistic and have sensible priorities about where we use batteries.
For this removal of OHLE to make any sense, it would need to be at a point when it was life expired to avoid the cost of replacement. The whole point of it is that the train doesn't need to transport its power source about with it.
Perhaps an interesting question is whether displaced OHLE could be displaced to secondary routes.
As for 2035, if you really think that electrification could be removed anywhere, it wouldn't be planned for HS2 Phase 2b and I am sure we'll find that route is fitted with OHLE rather than reliant on some other form of propulsion.
The only reasons for removal of OHLE would appear to be for aesthetics or where it is prone to issues in high wind. Fortunately electrification is generally planned on the basis of being sympathetic to places of beauty. I think you would improve unreliable OHLE rather than remove it.
For this removal of OHLE to make any sense, it would need to be at a point when it was life expired to avoid the cost of replacement. The whole point of it is that the train doesn't need to transport its power source about with it.
Perhaps an interesting question is whether displaced OHLE could be displaced to secondary routes.
As for 2035, if you really think that electrification could be removed anywhere, it wouldn't be planned for HS2 Phase 2b and I am sure we'll find that route is fitted with OHLE rather than reliant on some other form of propulsion.
The only reasons for removal of OHLE would appear to be for aesthetics or where it is prone to issues in high wind. Fortunately electrification is generally planned on the basis of being sympathetic to places of beauty. I think you would improve unreliable OHLE rather than remove it.
Last edited:
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Penistone to Sheffield Victoria?
Lancaster Green Ayre to Morecambe and Heysham?
Tyneside third rail network?
Newport to Shildon?
All are lines that have been de-electrified in the past, operated as such for a significant period, and are at least partly still open.
Lancaster Green Ayre to Morecambe and Heysham?
Tyneside third rail network?
Newport to Shildon?
All are lines that have been de-electrified in the past, operated as such for a significant period, and are at least partly still open.
Wallsendmag
Established Member
At least one has even been re-electrified
And that's the truth.
I maintain churches should be allowed to pass an electric current through their roofs to deter lead theft as 25kv seems to deter copper theft.
I speak as somebody who's local church incurred circa £50k worth of damage due to the lead fairies.
You could also add Epping to Ongar to that list.
Western 52
Member
Balloch Pier closed in 1986 and was electrified on 25kv.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
Would need some pretty impressive batteries for a freight locomotive. Unless we are going down the route of batteries on some/all freight wagons with a DC bus connecting ALL the wagons and loco together. So I would expect passenger only lines to be de-electrified first. But that is a long long way off.
Remember we will have plenty of straight electric trains to cascade to secondary etc routes in place of DMUs first. Or maybe the 350s, 700s, 345s etc will get a fusion reactor retro-fitted. May I suggest a suitable unit for trying out fusion reactors. They have/had a large luggage compartment ideal for the reactor and fit on DC routes. Yes, of course, my beloved 442s. And then pigs might literally fly
.
Remember we will have plenty of straight electric trains to cascade to secondary etc routes in place of DMUs first. Or maybe the 350s, 700s, 345s etc will get a fusion reactor retro-fitted. May I suggest a suitable unit for trying out fusion reactors. They have/had a large luggage compartment ideal for the reactor and fit on DC routes. Yes, of course, my beloved 442s. And then pigs might literally fly
.
Last edited:
Bevan Price
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 7,343
Interesting idea, but never likely to be feasible over the full network. All batteries rely on some form of chemical reaction, and even if you could safely use the most reactive pair of substances, you are never likely to make batteries with both an acceptable weight and acceptable capacity to fuel high speed trains for several hundred miles......
Shortish lines, lowish speeds and opportunities to recharge batteries at one or more locations is likely to be the limit of battery technology.
Shortish lines, lowish speeds and opportunities to recharge batteries at one or more locations is likely to be the limit of battery technology.
Good point, although:
Penistone - Sheffield Vic = current section still open is only used by freight
Lancaster - Morecambe / Heysgham - again only section still open used by daily pax train and occasional freight
Tyneside = Most of it is now part of Tyne & Wear metro
Newport - Shildon = like the Woodhead route, the loss of coal traffic made this insuitable given it didn't cover passenger services
Can add to the list parts of the L&Y network around Bury which is part of the East Lancs railway!
As with others I cannot see a case where routes are de-electrified given the extra weight of batteries and the need for electrification to recharge them anyway.
Ploughman
Established Member
I suppose that the Liverpool Overhead Railway could be included as well.
Battery technology would have to go a long way to make large scale de-electrification viable. However I can imagine OHLE replacement omitting anything "difficult" and also some of the shorter, passenger only, branches such as Colchester Town. What we mighht see is the "temporary" removal of sections of OHLE if serious damage occurs rather than repair or replace.
In what possible scenario would you need to remove the OHLE on any part of a 'pure' electrified network such as that including Colchester Town[1]? Why would any substantial number of the trains serving that part of Essex have batteries installed[2]? What kind of damage would have to be caused to consider temporary removal of OHLE rather than fixing it? Surely the branch isn't where the "difficult" OHLE is. It all seems a bit far fetched.
[1] I concede that it is only an example.
[2] I appreciate there is the Sudbury branch where a battery train might be useful but that doesn't mean that the fleet serving mainline services is all going to be fitted with batteries.
Battery technology might have a place for gaps but any amount of de-electrification going forward seems highly improbable. Having said that, there is the possibility of this?
Battery boost for low-carbon train travel without full electrification
Diesel-powered UK trains are to be retrofitted with batteries, allowing them to run on low-carbon electricity even on rail lines which have not been electrified.
Given that we'd be working towards net zero the graph below should show quite clearly why the removal of OHLE is unlikely:
Basically down to the fact that batteries require more energy (and therefore create more emissions) than "plugging in".
To give you an idea of how much of a difference this makes for every 10,000 passenger miles undertaken the emissions are:
Current rail 0.59 tonnes
EV charging off the grid 0.60 tonnes
Two key points with this; firstly even if a car is charged off solar on your roof, unless you generate enough for all your needs you'll still increase grid use.
Secondly; that's not current EMU, that current rail including a proportional for all the diesel trains which are running - and or still beets EV.
Also the mining of the materials for batteries is bad environmentally. Including poisoning of water courses, deforestation, etc. Before you consider often there's at the very least forced labour in bad conditions, chances are they's likely to be slavery involved (agreed estimates are that there's 27 million slaves worldwide currently, that's not that many less than the 32 million who voted in the 2019 general election, that's voted and not voted for any given party).
Feel free to carry on the discussion, however the above should highlight why such a suggestion is unlikely to actually see the light of day.
Basically down to the fact that batteries require more energy (and therefore create more emissions) than "plugging in".
To give you an idea of how much of a difference this makes for every 10,000 passenger miles undertaken the emissions are:
Current rail 0.59 tonnes
EV charging off the grid 0.60 tonnes
Two key points with this; firstly even if a car is charged off solar on your roof, unless you generate enough for all your needs you'll still increase grid use.
Secondly; that's not current EMU, that current rail including a proportional for all the diesel trains which are running - and or still beets EV.
Also the mining of the materials for batteries is bad environmentally. Including poisoning of water courses, deforestation, etc. Before you consider often there's at the very least forced labour in bad conditions, chances are they's likely to be slavery involved (agreed estimates are that there's 27 million slaves worldwide currently, that's not that many less than the 32 million who voted in the 2019 general election, that's voted and not voted for any given party).
Feel free to carry on the discussion, however the above should highlight why such a suggestion is unlikely to actually see the light of day.
xotGD
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 6,089
Sorry but that graph is very misleading. In future hydrogen will be produced either from renewable electricity (green hydrogen) or from hydrocarbons with carbon capture and storage (blue hydrogen). In either case the carbon footprint will be very low.
I did take the OP as assuming a future environment with 100% hybrid traction rather than the trains running this morning.In what possible scenario would you need to remove the OHLE on any part of a 'pure' electrified network such as that including Colchester Town[1]? Why would any substantial number of the trains serving that part of Essex have batteries installed[2]? What kind of damage would have to be caused to consider temporary removal of OHLE rather than fixing it? Surely the branch isn't where the "difficult" OHLE is. It all seems a bit far fetched.
[1] I concede that it is only an example.
[2] I appreciate there is the Sudbury branch where a battery train might be useful but that doesn't mean that the fleet serving mainline services is all going to be fitted with batteries.
Battery technology might have a place for gaps but any amount of de-electrification going forward seems highly improbable. Having said that, there is the possibility of this?
Battery boost for low-carbon train travel without full electrification
Diesel-powered UK trains are to be retrofitted with batteries, allowing them to run on low-carbon electricity even on rail lines which have not been electrified.eandt.theiet.org
edwin_m
Veteran Member
However the amount of energy required at source to carry a certain number of passengers for a particular journey will be much more using a hydrogen train than an electric one. This is because of the inefficiency of double-conversion of energy to hydrogen and back again with transport and storage in between, and the increased weight of the hydrogen train needing more energy to propel it.
That doesn't matter too much if the hydrogen is generated from energy or raw material that would otherwise be wasted, as might happen with renewable electricity at times of low demand. But for other situations, possibly including production from hydrocarbons, even if the energy used to generate the hydrogen comes from a low-carbon source it may be displacing other energy users onto higher-carbon sources.
So there's actually a lot of complexity around the carbon footprint of different forms of propulsion, but electric will always be better than hydrogen for a train, unless the traffic density is so low that the embodied carbon of the overhead line equipment comes into the equation. And if we're discussing possible de-electrification of electric lines then the embodied carbon issue applies not to the whole electrification system, as that's already there, but to those parts that might fall due for renewal.
Which is indeed what the graph shows, however italso shows that using OHLE will produce lower carbon emissions as it requires less energy.
The problem is that we're aiming for net zero, so every bit of electricity which is used for something which could be done more efficiently means a larger power grid to facilitate it. That requires extra emissions in the construction of it.
We could generate enough energy for everyone to use EV's to every single trip, however that would require a LOT more energy than if 20% of all trips were undertaken by walking/cycling (given that 40% of all trips are less than 2 miles and a further 20% are less than 5 miles that's an achievable figure).
Likewise if we do more work from home (reducing overall milage by 10%, which again is could be achievable, if 30% of people work from home 30% of the time, especially if we also do more online shopping or at least go shopping less frequently), that's going to get us closer to zero emissions than if we don't bother.
To put it another way, if you owe £25,000 which is better adding £200/month to that debt or adding £100/month to that debt?
Clearly the ideal is adding £0, but if that's not possible then the lower the figure the better, right?
It's the same with carbon, as a rich country which can afford to make all the needed changes we should be leading the way. As by doing so not only do we meet our own targets but also help others who don't quite. In addition of we are a big market for something then it's likely that others will follow in doing what we do, as the cost of providing a different product for different markets would likely offset the cost savings of doing something cheaper.
xotGD
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 6,089
Well no, the graph assumed the same carbon intensity of electricity used for hydrogen production as for the other options. Hydrogen production from dedicated renewables or from reforming/gasification with carbon capture will have a lower carbon intensity. Indeed, if you produce the hydrogen from biomass with carbon capture it eill be net carbon negative.
I agree that the round trip efficiency is lower for hydrogen. However, if the source is dedicated renewables, the energy would otherwise be 'wasted'.
The only way that hydrogen would be green would be if there's an excess of renewables compared to demand, otherwise by using those renewables used for hydrogen there would be a need for that energy to be met by extra renewables or by other sources.
As an example of you have peak demand for 100 units and renewables for 100 units with any spare being used to create hydrogen, then that's better than having a need for 100 units but 5 units of your 100 units of renewables being used for hydrogen and having to meet that need from other sources.
To put it in practical terms on a sunny and windy day there'll be an oversupply of renewables and so you could produce lots of hydrogen, however on a still night you wouldn't produce any. That would likely mean that you'd need to have the ability to store a load of Hydrogen. Which leaves the potential for some of it could be used like a battery to provide power when supply is low and demand is high.
Until we are able to be generating +90% of our energy needs from renewables (possibly/possibly not including nuclear) then I suspect the green credentials of Hydrogen would be difficult to sell if we have to make up shortfalls by burning gas to create it, especially gas shipped from overseas (given that most of this year so far we've used zero coal so that's less of an issue).
xotGD
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 6,089
Long term, green hydrogen will be produced from dedicated renewables such as floating offshore wind. For info, search for Project Dolphyn. (Note - all hydrogen related projects need to have the letters 'HY' somewhere in their name!)
Long term I'll accept, but even in the 7 year window being talked about for that project chances are it would be greener to use the wind power to be used as electricity, unless the hydrogen is being used as an alternative to gas in home heating. In which case using it as a replacement for EMU's probably wouldn't be up there on the list of things to do.
Trainician
Member
GWML is more likely but the WCML and ECML are more important so will probably be de-electrified last
Trainician
Member
But wind power requires a turbine and where would it go? if I were you I would think of solar panels to power batteries
In the context of the post I was replying to the wind turbines were out at sea, that's not somewhere where solar panels are likely.
The problem with batteries is that, although better than Hydrogen, they aren't as efficient as powering things directly.
Batteries also currently aren't overly ethical, what with the significant damage that the mining does to the local environment and the very poor working conditions.
It's probably just as good (if not better) to use spare energy to pump water back up into reservoirs to then create more energy using hydro power when there's high energy demand.
- Status