Hydrogen as a fuel source for trains

[A0wen]

Mod note: split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/mml-electrification.110445/

Personally all the talk about Grayling and his decisions is getting tedious. He has blatantly stated he wants money spent elsewhere in preference to the MML. Until he is no longer the secretary of Transport its not going to change.

Perhaps if the conversation piece changed how to get the most out of bi-mode/hydrogen technology we might actually get to the point where we are grateful the wires didn't go up.

We are arguing a case of "Technology we know" vs " what technology is that?" and we only have Graylings word that Bi modes will support the MML as well as OHLE will.

After watching a video about a Toyota Hydrogen cell car I Can see the attraction of putting this tech into a train. Its quiet, accelerates reasonably well and the train will never be bogged down by bad weather like OHLE trains will be, well not until you get to Kettering anyway.

That said, I'm more sympathetic to your point about the alternative technologies - it's what's being looked at for virtually every other form of transport at present. Yes electrification may be one answer, but 50 years ago hydrogen fuel cells were the stuff of science fiction, yet Honda are building cars now with exactly this technology in place. Are they suitable for rail use? Who knows, but the expense of wiring lengths of mainline is a major capital expense which needs to pay for itself over a number of years. In 1960 or even 1980 there wasn't an immediately obvious alternative, today in 2018 there potentially is - and that's what we should focus on.

 

[richieb1971]

That said, I'm more sympathetic to your point about the alternative technologies - it's what's being looked at for virtually every other form of transport at present. Yes electrification may be one answer, but 50 years ago hydrogen fuel cells were the stuff of science fiction, yet Honda are building cars now with exactly this technology in place. Are they suitable for rail use? Who knows, but the expense of wiring lengths of mainline is a major capital expense which needs to pay for itself over a number of years. In 1960 or even 1980 there wasn't an immediately obvious alternative, today in 2018 there potentially is - and that's what we should focus on.

From what I learnt about Hydrogen cars it seems like Hydrogen is actually like carrying a tank of electricity around with you. Whilst you could argue diesel is the same principle its obvious to me that its not. Diesel power creates noise, it vibrates quite a bit and fumes come out the top. With Hydrogen your getting almost all the benefits of electric power, only water is emitted, you get a really quiet propulsion system and from what I can tell there is almost zero vibration from the engines. All the techie guys need to do is upscale the car technology to train size and voila.... you have an electric railway that isn't electrified which is clean, efficient.. The only argument against it is the trains will be slightly smaller and heavier.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The only argument against it is the trains will be slightly smaller and heavier.

Well - IMHO- not the only one. People can beatch all they want about 25kV AC electricity and pant distance etc, but compressed Hydrogen gas is extremely explosive - god forbid one of those blows up -tank gets ruptured - and if in a tunnel with another train present - wowsers -does not bear thinking about. (Sorry mods if we are getting way OT)

 

[richieb1971]

Well - IMHO- not the only one. People can beatch all they want about 25kV AC electricity and pant distance etc, but compressed Hydrogen gas is extremely explosive - god forbid one of those blows up -tank gets ruptured - and if in a tunnel with another train present - wowsers -does not bear thinking about. (Sorry mods if we are getting way OT)

If we are OT its because Chris Grayling is OT.

 

[jyte]

From what I learnt about Hydrogen cars it seems like Hydrogen is actually like carrying a tank of electricity around with you. Whilst you could argue diesel is the same principle its obvious to me that its not. Diesel power creates noise, it vibrates quite a bit and fumes come out the top. With Hydrogen your getting almost all the benefits of electric power, only water is emitted, you get a really quiet propulsion system and from what I can tell there is almost zero vibration from the engines. All the techie guys need to do is upscale the car technology to train size and voila.... you have an electric railway that isn't electrified which is clean, efficient.. The only argument against it is the trains will be slightly smaller and heavier.

I don't think hydrogen tech is quite there yet. Why do we have Teslas that can drive 300 miles on a single charge but no hydrogen cars capable of performing the same feat?

Hydrogen is also very explosive as Gralistair highlighted. I think London's hydrogen busses have caught fire before, and a fire on a hydrogen bus is very, very dangerous.

 

[Mikey C]

I don't think hydrogen tech is quite there yet. Why do we have Teslas that can drive 300 miles on a single charge but no hydrogen cars capable of performing the same feat?

Hydrogen is also very explosive as Gralistair highlighted. I think London's hydrogen busses have caught fire before, and a fire on a hydrogen bus is very, very dangerous.

Isn't the main problem for Hydrogen cars the lack of infrastructure to fill your car up? To get a sizeable number of petrol stations to supply hydrogen as well would be massively expensive, and (in a chicken and egg situation) not worth it until lots of people have hydrogen cars etc With electric cars, plug sockets are everywhere

For public transport this is less of an issue. Hydrogen need only be supplied to small number of locations (train depots, bus garages)

 

[Domh245]

I think there are a few more issues than just fuelling infrastructure, as being discussed in the hydrogen trains thread over in traction & rolling stock

 

[richieb1971]

How is carrying hydrogen fuel any more dangerous than carrying diesel fuel? Do hydrogen trains create mushroom clouds when they crash?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

How is carrying hydrogen fuel any more dangerous than carrying diesel fuel? Do hydrogen trains create mushroom clouds when they crash?

Rather than give a lecture - it is one of the most flammable substances in the universe and requires very little energy to ignite. Diesel fuel is already liquid in its natural state and has very low ignitability and flammability. It requires a fair amount of energy to ignite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety

Diesel is a lot safer. Quote from Wikipedia [Conventional diesel flash points vary between 52 and 96 °C, which makes it safer than petrol and unsuitable for spark-ignition engines.] END QUOTE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_fuel

No, hydrogen does not create mushroom clouds - nor do nuclear reactors by the way.

 

[Domh245]

I'm not 100% sure, but from memory Diesel tends to burn (if you can get it to actuaaly catch) whereas Hydrogen tends to explode.

 

[jyte]

Gaseous hydrogen is enormously explosive. A sudden decompression (as in a ruptured tank) turns liquid hydrogen into gas instantly, IIRC, which means big fireball. Diesel only explodes when gaseous, which is a much harder state for it to occupy.

ALSO (and I'm sure this has been improved) converting H2O into O2 and H for the 'fuel' and the back again for the power are both still pretty inefficient. I can't remember the exact figures....

Basically what I was trying to say is we're going to have battery powered trains rather than hydrogen ones, in my opinion.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Gaseous hydrogen is enormously explosive. A sudden decompression (as in a ruptured tank) turns liquid hydrogen into gas instantly, IIRC, which means big fireball. Diesel only explodes when gaseous, which is a much harder state for it to occupy.

ALSO (and I'm sure this has been improved) converting H2O into O2 and H for the 'fuel' and the back again for the power are both still pretty inefficient. I can't remember the exact figures....

Basically what I was trying to say is we're going to have battery powered trains rather than hydrogen ones, in my opinion.

Correct

 

[Hophead]

A related article from Rail Engineer (5th January 2018; click next line for link):
Hydrail comes of age


Visitors to InnoTrans in 2016 were provided with definitive evidence that hydrail is now a viable technology as Alstom launched its hydrogen powered Coradia iLint train. With the creation of the Hydrogen Council in January 2017, hydrogen is becoming big business as the Council’s founding members, 13 transport and energy companies (including Alstom), plan to invest 10 billion euros in hydrogen technologies over the next five years.

Alstom’s iLint is the latest and most promising of a number of hydrail vehicles produced since the first Hydrail conference.

It's a fairly long article which concludes:

As fuel cells have become more compact and efficient, and hydrogen provides a means of storing otherwise unused energy from the increasing number of wind farms, hydrogen has come of age as a viable fuel for road and rail vehicles. It offers zero-emissions and self-sufficiency. It is a fuel that does not consume resources and has known fixed costs, which are only those of the provision and maintenance of the equipment to generate, transport and use hydrogen.

With all these benefits, a long-term future in which all DMUs have been replaced by HMUs is a realistic goal. However, the replacement, or retrofitting, of 3,000 DMUs and the provision of the required hydrogen infrastructure would be a costly investment taking many years.

It does read a bit like "advertorial", but I'm sure there's a fair bit of proper research in there.

 

[mr_jrt]

There's also the slight problem of storage - hydrogen atoms are the smallest atom, and have a habit of leaking out of their containers by passing between the atoms of the container. Makes the infrastructure for handling it on an industrial scale far more wasteful than would otherwise appear.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

A related article from Rail Engineer (5th January 2018; click next line for link):
Hydrail comes of age

However, the replacement, or retrofitting, of 3,000 DMUs and the provision of the required hydrogen infrastructure would be a costly investment taking many years.

It does read a bit like "advertorial", but I'm sure there's a fair bit of proper research in there.

In other words a helluva lotta CAPEX

There's also the slight problem of storage - hydrogen atoms are the smallest atom, and have a habit of leaking out of their containers by passing between the atoms of the container. Makes the infrastructure for handling it on an industrial scale far more wasteful than would otherwise appear.

Gaseous too -water is a liquid and ubiquitous but you aint seen nothing until you have seen hydrogen gas under pressure.

 

[jayah]

Gaseous hydrogen is enormously explosive. A sudden decompression (as in a ruptured tank) turns liquid hydrogen into gas instantly, IIRC, which means big fireball. Diesel only explodes when gaseous, which is a much harder state for it to occupy.

ALSO (and I'm sure this has been improved) converting H2O into O2 and H for the 'fuel' and the back again for the power are both still pretty inefficient. I can't remember the exact figures....

Basically what I was trying to say is we're going to have battery powered trains rather than hydrogen ones, in my opinion.

I would strongly agree. The bus market is already moving fast in this direction. You already have 100kwh types doing fast charging at the terminus in 10min and 500kwh types running all day. It is already at the stage where diagrams like the Thames Valley branches could easily run on battery power and in their favour the cost of large batteries vs £2m per rail vehicle is far more favourable than say a bus or a £15k car.

 

[Flying Phil]

Re the Hydrogen option, the article says "For this reason, hydrogen powered trains have been described as electric trains as their fuel is produced by electricity. The difference between them and conventional electric trains is that, instead of the catenary, there is a hydrogen production and distribution network. The efficiency of converting electricity to hydrogen and back for rail traction is just under thirty per cent, which is about the same as a diesel engine but much less than conventional electric traction."
So, would Battery BiModes with small batteries to cover short distances combined with "Simple" OHLE where bridges/tunnels/expensive installations are bridged with non -live wires and live wires used elsewhere, be an economic and less polluting option?

 

[jyte]

The other major advantage of batteries over hydrogen: Batteries can be charged when you're under the wires, so you don' need special refuelling stations.

 

[A0wen]

I don't think hydrogen tech is quite there yet. Why do we have Teslas that can drive 300 miles on a single charge but no hydrogen cars capable of performing the same feat?

Not true - quoted range circa 400 miles http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/honda/clarity-fcv/93321/new-honda-clarity-fcv-2017-review

 

[jyte]

Not true - quoted range circa 400 miles http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/honda/clarity-fcv/93321/new-honda-clarity-fcv-2017-review

https://futurism.com/a-tesla-just-drove-a-record-breaking-900-kilometers-on-a-single-charge/ 550 odd miles achieved by a Tesla in the middle of this year - admittedly at an average speed of 24mph. In the same vain, that Honda is "in truth it’s less than 300 in real-world use". I think musk is aiming for a real world range of 500 miles for their next-gen vehicles at speeds higher than 24mph - the roadster has a 620mile range, apparently.

What I'm saying is that hydrogen as an idea powering cars has been around probably since 2005, and hasn't developed considerably. On the other hand, the electric battery powered car industry and battery in general industry has. With a battery powered train you can charge it up whilst it's running under the wires, whereas with hydrogen it would have to make visits to a refuelling depot.

 

[themiller]

All this 'banter' about battery and hydrogen powered trains completely ignores freight which in the absence of wires must remain diesel. So passenger trains can be faster but without being able to speed up freight by using electric traction, it remains a difficult task to provide sufficient capacity for both. This is one of the things that Chris Grayling ignored in his statements at the Transport Select Committee and full credit to the man he pulled it off because the TSC members didn't pick up on it. In the world of mixed traffic railways, capacity and speed are limited not by installed power but by the trains in front of you.

 

[hwl]

https://futurism.com/a-tesla-just-drove-a-record-breaking-900-kilometers-on-a-single-charge/ 550 odd miles achieved by a Tesla in the middle of this year - admittedly at an average speed of 24mph. In the same vain, that Honda is "in truth it’s less than 300 in real-world use". I think musk is aiming for a real world range of 500 miles for their next-gen vehicles at speeds higher than 24mph - the roadster has a 620mile range, apparently.

What I'm saying is that hydrogen as an idea powering cars has been around probably since 2005, and hasn't developed considerably. On the other hand, the electric battery powered car industry and battery in general industry has. With a battery powered train you can charge it up whilst it's running under the wires, whereas with hydrogen it would have to make visits to a refuelling depot.

The first Hydrogen fuel cell buses ran in service 20 years ago (1998 Chicago and Vancouver), still running in trial quantities today...

 

[A0wen]

All this 'banter' about battery and hydrogen powered trains completely ignores freight which in the absence of wires must remain diesel. So passenger trains can be faster but without being able to speed up freight by using electric traction, it remains a difficult task to provide sufficient capacity for both. This is one of the things that Chris Grayling ignored in his statements at the Transport Select Committee and full credit to the man he pulled it off because the TSC members didn't pick up on it. In the world of mixed traffic railways, capacity and speed are limited not by installed power but by the trains in front of you.

Electric for freight has other problems though - specifically you need all the yards, servicing areas etc electrified - add in that loading some freight in close proximity to wires isn't a great idea.

And overall there are far fewer freight trains running - even on the MML - than there are passenger, so if the driver is better speed and lower emissions, passenger trains are the obvious place to start.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Electric for freight has other problems though - specifically you need all the yards, servicing areas etc electrified - add in that loading some freight in close proximity to wires isn't a great idea.

I thought Class 88s solved that problem

 

[59CosG95]

I thought Class 88s solved that problem

Well, DRS are only running the Dav-Mossend Tesco trains, the occasional flask working and sometimes the Crewe-Carlisle engineers trains with 88s so far...not exactly making best use of the E-D capabilities.
The Daventry-Purfleets are being looked at, AIUI - pathing around London still needs to be sorted, but once the GOBLIN's all ready, I can foresee 88s down that way in the future.

This is however a moot point with regards the MML - the only freight DRS have booked this way are the Crewe-Mountsorrel ballast workings, which are mainly 66-hauled. In fact, the majority of long-distance freight on the MML uses the Derby-Leeds stretch, along with a few trains around Leics & Notts (plus Toton)...and I don't think any of those operators currently have electro-diesel locomotives in their sights.

 

[londonmidland]

Well, DRS are only running the Dav-Mossend Tesco trains, the occasional flask working and sometimes the Crewe-Carlisle engineers trains with 88s so far...not exactly making best use of the E-D capabilities.
The Daventry-Purfleets are being looked at, AIUI - pathing around London still needs to be sorted, but once the GOBLIN's all ready, I can foresee 88s down that way in the future.

This is however a moot point with regards the MML - the only freight DRS have booked this way are the Crewe-Mountsorrel ballast workings, which are mainly 66-hauled. In fact, the majority of long-distance freight on the MML uses the Derby-Leeds stretch, along with a few trains around Leics & Notts (plus Toton)...and I don't think any of those operators currently have electro-diesel locomotives in their sights.

You do get a lot of intermodal traffic at Leicester however this only uses the Wigston - Syston section of the MML with half of its route away from wires.

 

[59CosG95]

You do get a lot of intermodal traffic at Leicester however this only uses the Wigston - Syston section of the MML with half of its route away from wires.

Ah yes, forgot about that short bit. I was mainly referring to the Leeds-So'ton ones, which use a significant portion of the MML.