Hydroflex - testing

[norbitonflyer]

A bit like a 755 then, 3 or 4 passenger coaches and that little wagon thing in the middle.

Or any loco hauled train. Unless platform space is critical, having the power unit at one end of (and detachable from) the passenger-carrying section has many advantages.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

That's why you start with where the marginal cost of reducing it is lower. Which isn't on rural branch lines.

They're the best place to train additional electrification teams though - the GWEP practice included bits of Old Dalby and High Marnham test tracks (which is where the HOPS train was certified, and boy should it have been certified).

Or any loco hauled train. Unless platform space is critical, having the power unit at one end of (and detachable from) the passenger-carrying section has many advantages.

Variable track access charges do suggest you spread out the weight of that locomotive though, or you'll get an eye-watering bill.

 

[Bald Rick]

Are you seriously trying to say the hydrogen WASN'T a factor?

Err, no, I was saying “have a look upthread”

 

[The Ham]

The marginal effect of the UK eliminating all its CO2 emissions from diesel trains, even if it happened tomorrow, is about nil. People really need to get some perspective about the size of this country and more importantly, some notion of cost effectiveness.

However we've set ourselves the target of meet zero, as such we've not got the luxury of leading 2% of this and 3% of that.

Anyway, given that we've said were going to be net zero means that others (including interestingly China) have followed suit. Each country which does so is another step towards keeping emissions low enough.

Even if others only committed to the best minimum cuts and not net zero the fact that we've gone further gives the world a better chance.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Oct 2020 ==

I’ve not been able to find a definitive figure/statistic following a brief search, but it certainly appears that the railway is already a very low emitter. I get that further reductions can be made which is great, but is it really necessary to rid the network of diesel powered trains?

Rail emissions are available from ORR, which gives a per km figure of 36.6g. that's comparable to EV's even though about 1/2 of the energy use (when you convert diesel to KWh) of the railways is from diesel.

As such there's a LOT more which the railways can do.

However given that rail isn't any good for short distances, and many who use rail would walk/cycle for such trips, it could be argued that a straight comparison is unfair. Especially given the number of students who use rail who would otherwise be reliant on lifts from parents which would then have a wasted leg.l (i.e. back home after dropping them off).

 

[mwmbwls]

Hydrogen can be made at scale either by Steam Methane Reforming (but this produces carbon dioxide so you would need carbon capture and storage) or by electrolysis from water. Before all the squealing starts about energy efficiency, that argument is moot if the energy you use for the electrolysis is virtually free in the first place, which it can be if you have an excess of renewable generation capacity.
Ask the Institution of Mechanical Engineers https://www.power-technology.com/fe...urplus-solar-wind-power-good-source-hydrogen/
"The Institution of Mechanical Engineers is advocating for surplus renewable energy to be diverted to hydrogen fuel cells in order to boost the hydrogen fuel market, and balance supply and demand".

Hydrogen is also produced as part of the chlor-alkali process. Hydrogen produced from chlor-alkali plants was typically wasted and vented to the atmosphere. If it is recovered and utilized then it can viably play a significant role for process heat on site or exported as an energy resource. In the baseline scenario, 47% of produced hydrogen is used in HCl production, 10% in controlling pressure difference, and the remainder was not used (i.e. 43% of hydrogen was vented into the atmosphere). The proposed cleaner production option is either to install a hydrogen boiler next to the existing fuel boiler and utilize the hydrogen to generate steam for on-site process heating purposes or to capture the hydrogen and use it for fuel.
The reason Teeside is the chosen future base for the hydrogen fleet is because it has surplus hydrogen as evidenced in this newspaper article from 2013

Hydrogen from Teesside 'could fuel UK - AND create jobs'

Teesside produces HALF of UK's hydrogen :: Redcar MP Anna Turley has taken the campaign to Westminster

www.gazettelive.co.uk

 

[Darandio]

It would have crashed even if it had been filled with helium. The skin caught fire, as soon as you lose the skin and gas containment is lost, gravity is taking over and the only way you're going is earthward.

It wouldn't have taken off if it had been filled with helium, not with the payload weight the Hindenburg normally required for a transatlantic crossing.

I've often see the question asked about why the Germans didn't use Helium in the first place. Because they didn't have helium and couldn't get it!

 

[102 fan]

Will there be a crash test? If it's as safe as you say, what's the problem?

 

[Wyrleybart]

Do you think the ORR would licence a public passenger carrying vehicle which would "destroy most of the carriage" if it suffered a failure ?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

However we've set ourselves the target of meet zero, as such we've not got the luxury of leading 2% of this and 3% of that.

Anyway, given that we've said were going to be net zero means that others (including interestingly China) have followed suit. Each country which does so is another step towards keeping emissions low enough.

I believe in Pareto.

 

[lkpridgeon]

I agree, and if electrification is not viable, battery power is IMHO a more sensible option than hydrogen.

The issue with batteries as I understand is that unless we make some drastic breakthrough in battery technology we're going to have global shortages of rare earth minerals so we need a backup plan and currently Hydrogen power is that.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Pareto

" The Pareto principle states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. Management consultant Joseph M. Juran suggested the principle and named it after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who noted the 80/20 connection while at the University of Lausanne in 1896. "

So much as I would love to electrify the whole damn lot I am sure a huge reduction in carbon (80% )can come from about 20% of what is suggested in the TDNS.

However, every bit helps.

 

[Domh245]

The issue with batteries as I understand is that unless we make some drastic breakthrough in battery technology we're going to have global shortages of rare earth minerals so we need a backup plan and currently Hydrogen power is that.

Given that hydrogen MUs are in fact battery EMUs but with slightly less battery capacity (to make way for the tanks and fuel cells) but the onboard fuel source (for an automotive analogy, think BMW i3 with range extender), they have the same issue with battery price/cost as BEMUs. They solve the niche of "it's too long a distance to make it on a single/half battery charge, and there's no way we can put wires up along the route for rapid recharge" - a very small niche

 

[Meerkat]

By the time a rolling electrification project starts to roll to a halt won’t the price per km be drastically lower as supply looks for things to do?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

By the time a rolling electrification project starts to roll to a halt won’t the price per km be drastically lower as supply looks for things to do?

No.

 

[Bald Rick]

I've often see the question asked about why the Germans didn't use Helium in the first place. Because they didn't have helium and couldn't get it!

Indeed it was actually conceived as as Helium ship, but the Americans (as holder of most of the world’s supply) wouldn’t sell it to the Germans.

 

[Energy]

By the time a rolling electrification project starts to roll to a halt won’t the price per km be drastically lower as supply looks for things to do?

They will just cut back on production. The high cost right now is the uncertainty of production means that we get high setup costs from each time, if we can have them continually producing at a steady rate it gives more certainty. For example a 48 month contract (they would probably be longer) means 48 months of continual production, giving 48 months of employment to the employees and means the machines will be used for 48 months. If we are giving 3 month (or probably shorter) contracts that means there is only 3 months of machines being used and employment, they could immediately get another job for more electrification afterwards but they could also be waiting 6 months until the next contract.

 

[The Ham]

Pareto

" The Pareto principle states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. Management consultant Joseph M. Juran suggested the principle and named it after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who noted the 80/20 connection while at the University of Lausanne in 1896. "

So much as I would love to electrify the whole damn lot I am sure a huge reduction in carbon (80% )can come from about 20% of what is suggested in the TDNS.

However, every bit helps.

Indeed, it's why those last percentages of the network which are penciled in for hydrogen (at least for up to 2050) make sense to achieve a significant reduction in CO2e from the railways.

 

[Class 170101]

Most Northern services to Morpeth work through from the Tyne Valley line, which is not electrified.

But arguably if it was that important to make full use of the wires then the train service would be split at Newcastle with the Newcastle to Chathill section being provided by EMUs.

You could argue the same for Birmingham to Shrewsbury and mid Wales services, split at Wolverhampton amongst many others I'm sure.

 

[Mikey C]

CO2 is less of an issue when it comes to hydrogen trains, since there's a good chance much of the hydrogen will be surplus hydrogen from industrial processes which is only really low carbon by fudging the emissions numbers. The real win with hydrogen however is removing nitrogen oxides and particulate matter from built-up residential areas (it is for this reason the trials haven't gone down the route of using hydrogen internal combustion engines, which would be an easy like-for-like replacement on most DMUs - they still generate NOx emissions at the exhaust).

But then the built up residential areas are the ones where you'd expect trains to be fully electric or at least bi-mode electric in the centre anyway

Hydrogen may be a useful alternative for some of the remote branch lines, especially if they have a source of hydrogen nearby, but the air quality there is likely to pretty decent already.

 

[Darandio]

But arguably if it was that important to make full use of the wires then the train service would be split at Newcastle with the Newcastle to Chathill section being provided by EMUs.

Then you suddenly go from requiring one train to two, that doesn't quite stack up financially.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

But then the built up residential areas are the ones where you'd expect trains to be fully electric or at least bi-mode electric in the centre anyway

That's certainly true in some areas, but some towns won't see electrification - under the current plans, Fort William won't be electrified for example, and that's where a hydrogen unit is going to help with air quality. Yes, Fort Bill is lovely and remote and rural, but air quality around the station is still potentially concerning.

It's also worth remembering there are air quality concerns on the train itself, with high levels of particulate matter and nitrogen oxides being found beside the air conditioning and ventilation outlets on several different types of diesel units.

 

[Wyrleybart]

[

Then you suddenly go from requiring one train to two, that doesn't quite stack up financially.

Not necessarily. There are other services on the Tyne Valley which don't run from Chathill. It would mean changing trains at Newcastle for those that do, but that is like many other examples on the network. An example is the old Coventry-Nottingham service which reversed at Nuneaton and ran via Leicester. Nowadays you have to change at Nuneaton and Leicester, or go via Birmingham and change there.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

It's also worth remembering there are air quality concerns on the train itself, with high levels of particulate matter and nitrogen oxides being found beside the air conditioning and ventilation outlets on several different types of diesel units.

Exactly. Can’t find the link right now but 18 months ago in Chemistry World there was a paper published or referred to which showed particulates and NOx was in some cases 5 times the level in the coach next to the Diesel engine compared to the rear coach. I wrote to Lilian Greenwood about it.

I suggest if the general public clutch onto this they will avoid this coach or if bimodes........ Electrification/hydrogen/batteries is not just about low carbon.

 

[Lanley]

Exactly. Can’t find the link right now but 18 months ago in Chemistry World there was a paper published or referred to which showed particulates and NOx was in some cases 5 times the level in the coach next to the Diesel engine compared to the rear coach. I wrote to Lilian Greenwood about it.

I suggest if the general public clutch onto this they will avoid this coach or if bimodes........ Electrification/hydrogen/batteries is not just about low carbon.

Here's the link:

Air on board diesel trains is five times worse than beside a busy street

Ultrafine particles and soot linked to lung cancer are massively elevated in carriages pulled by diesel engines

www.chemistryworld.com

Air on board diesel trains is five times more polluted than beside a busy street

 

[Poppysdad]

Whilst this is an interesting trial the efficiency of generating power at the wheel of hydrogen is very low and therefore expensive. In Modern Railways Informed Sources 27th August Roger Fords article entitled "Alternative traction – the big guns open up" Roger Ford quotes "David Shirres has calculated, 3.4kW of electricity is needed to produce 1kW at the traction motors of a fuel cell powered train." So the question is would you pay 3x more for your electricity at home ? In various other seminars the consensus is that electrification is the only way forward with other technologies used for niche applications

 

[DustyBin]

Here's the link:

Air on board diesel trains is five times worse than beside a busy street

Ultrafine particles and soot linked to lung cancer are massively elevated in carriages pulled by diesel engines

www.chemistryworld.com

I probably need to stop sitting in the front carriage when I visit preserved railways!

 

[mwmbwls]

David Shirres has calculated, 3.4kW of electricity is needed to produce 1kW at the traction motors of a fuel cell powered train.

This quotation stems from this IMECHE - presentation which clearly defines the criteria that define what and where hydrogen trains could be viable.

https://nearyou.imeche.org/docs/default-source/scottish-rd-centre---past-presentations/180419-is-hydrogen-the-answer

.
My apologies to colleagues who cannot access this PDF presentation. The key passage to note is
"Hydrogen offers an “electrified” railway that is only 35% as efficient than one with wires with some time between consuming electricity and using it. It: • is an energy vector i.e. can be produced from an energy source, stored, transported and converted to another form of energy • has a predictable cost which is the capital, operational and maintenance cost of the kit required • offers fuel self-sufficiency • provides the large scale energy storage which is essential for efficient use of renewable energy • can be produced from otherwise surplus overnight wind power which is likely to become even cheaper "

 

[edwin_m]

This quotation stems from this IMECHE - presentation which clearly defines the criteria that define what and where hydrogen trains could be viable.

https://nearyou.imeche.org/docs/default-source/scottish-rd-centre---past-presentations/180419-is-hydrogen-the-answer

.
My apologies to colleagues who cannot access this PDF presentation. The key passage to note is
"Hydrogen offers an “electrified” railway that is only 35% as efficient than one with wires with some time between consuming electricity and using it. It: • is an energy vector i.e. can be produced from an energy source, stored, transported and converted to another form of energy • has a predictable cost which is the capital, operational and maintenance cost of the kit required • offers fuel self-sufficiency • provides the large scale energy storage which is essential for efficient use of renewable energy • can be produced from otherwise surplus overnight wind power which is likely to become even cheaper "

That's a pretty good summary. Hydrogen has a place in the mix but it's probably a fairly small one. Factors such as the economics of fuel cells versus batteries and the availability of surplus renewable energy will determine the final balance, and it's worth noting that NR's decarbonization strategy left quite a lot of routes where the final decision on a solution can't be made yet.

 

[CBlue]

As a proving exercise of fitting a hydrogen fuel cell into a train, this is certainly interesting. Generation and utilisation processes will get far more efficient with time...

As far as storage on-board goes and safety - tanks would doubtless be mounted on the roof rather than in a raft on the underside. This dewign was used on hydrogen powered buses - and having worked with and handled similar storage tanks containing pure oxygen (trust me, you really don't want that leaking) they take a hell of a lot of punishment.

 

[BRX]

No one's really mentioned freight. There are many built up areas that see not insignificant numbers of diesel hauled freight trains travel through even though the lines themselves may be fully electrified. I've often wondered what impact this has on local air quality.