Hydrogen powered trains ?

[xotGD]

Is it not the case that the limitations of bi-modes have influenced where they're proposed, rather than the other way around?

The IEP bi-mode being acceptable with lower performance on diesel, as this mode is only used at the extremities (or was planned as such) where linespeeds and loadings are lower. Contrast with Trans-Pennine where the ridiculous Grayling proposal to NOT electrify precisely the stretch where electric traction offers the greatest benefit- the steeply-graded cross-Pennine section.

Perhaps Grayling is looking to keep the costs down by only wiring the uphill sections, with the bi-modes using diesel when on the downhill stretch?

 

[InTheEastMids]

Tortally agree. I was not advocating wind power for the UK but advocating electric traction powered by an efficient power source. Dare I say nuclear in a UK context for example?

Efficient? Well wind power has an input cost of zero, so efficiency doesn't actually matter, because the fuel is free. People often (mistakenly) compare efficiency and load factor (which for offshore wind is pushing 50% now). Wind & solar power spank nuclear on cost and investibility too...

Back on topic:

Is there anything other than the 195s that would have their life/valuation seriously affected by Johnson Jr's pronouncements?
Even then, you can qualify with the spirit of this by repowering. The "mild hybrid" approach that is coming into automotive now, using a small electric motor / integrated starter-generator to assist the diesel engine would surely make it conform to the letter of what has been asked for, rather than the vaulting ambition they want to us to think they have.

Personally, I think the industry will come back with discontinuous but high power electrification, with pantographs going up and down like a fiddler's elbow across the network. If you can reduce the range requirement to <50 miles, then you can probably do that with no weight penalty over a DMU (e.g. the QSK19 in a 22x is 2t, and a full tank of diesel adds another 1t, 3t of batteries is quite a lot). It's easy to call this an overweight EMU, but taking that line misses the point that infrastructure and trains are an integrated system, and that you'll save £Billions by not having to wire every nook and cranny of the network.

Should the gaps be 500 meters or 50 miles? I expect that depends on quite a lot of factors, both technical and commercial

 

[richieb1971]

All we need is scientists and railway companies to join forces under a government scheme. If everyone had their jobs at stake we would have a solution by next autumn.

If the UK is going to survive Brexit we need to build new technologies, patent all of them and make sure we are a world leader in some things. Railways seems like a good place to start.

 

[pemma]

All we need is scientists and railway companies to join forces under a government scheme. If everyone had their jobs at stake we would have a solution by next autumn.

Solution to what? Jo Johnson hasn't exactly given a proper brief for what he's envisaging.

 

[pemma]

Perhaps Grayling is looking to keep the costs down by only wiring the uphill sections, with the bi-modes using diesel when on the downhill stretch?

No he's stated he wants to avoid wiring the sections which would be most costly to wire because he can't see what the economic benefit would be from wiring them.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Perhaps Grayling is looking to keep the costs down by only wiring the uphill sections, with the bi-modes using diesel when on the downhill stretch?

Perhaps, though I'm not sure Grayling knows exactly what his endgame is.

If that is the intention, I'd hope that the politician in charge of transport policy would have consulted with experts in the field to determine what the cost savings would be from that approach.

I'm not one of those experts, but looking at it as a layperson: if you're wiring uphill only, you're saving the cost of masts/wires on at best 50% of the track mileage. Bridge adjustments and the like will be exactly the same, so no savings there. Grid connections will cost the same, so no savings there either. Both lines will need a blockade to wire one line, so even though avoiding blockades is a false argument anyway, it can't even be dressed up as a genuine 'pro' to that approach. The only benefit is that the DfT can put out a press release proclaiming "We've achieved a 50% cost reduction! (on a relatively small portion of the overall project)."

Funny how under this "privatised" system there is more of a problem with uninformed politicians interfering than there ever was with British Rail.

 

[richieb1971]

We did gas turbines in the 70's. It worked. Don't know about emissions but I bet its cleaner than diesel.

Why are we trying to reinvent the wheel. Use gas turbines until OHLE is across the whole network. Job done.

 

[edwin_m]

We did gas turbines in the 70's. It worked. Don't know about emissions but I bet its cleaner than diesel.

Why are we trying to reinvent the wheel. Use gas turbines until OHLE is across the whole network. Job done.

We had exactly one gas turbine train in the 1970s. Some other countries dabbled in them to the extent of small fleets but the oil crisis effectively put an end to any further development. Which neatly pinpoints the disadvantage - much greater fuel consumption than a diesel in the typical railway operating environment where demanded power fluctuates rapidly. I don't know the relative emissions of NOx and particulates but it doesn't sound like a good starting point to eliminate pollution.

 

[furnessvale]

It may not need to; typically the diesel bit of a bi-mode route will be slower than the electric bit anyway.

With that disparity it certainly will be!

But seriously. I have no problem with a proper bi-mode freight loco, as opposed to a last mile unit, but to do that, the installed diesel bhp needs to be in the region of 3000. The diesel in an 88 will shunt into unwired sidings and get the train through slowly in an emergency (wires down etc), but full scheduled main line use where it is expected to haul a train that the electric mode has done the main job, is just not on.

 

[richieb1971]

What about salt water technology?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...60mph-2-8-seconds-just-approved-EU-roads.html

Sports cars may not have the best reputation for being environmentally-friendly, but this sleek machine has been designed to reach 217.5 mph (350 km/h) – using nothing but saltwater.

Its radical drive system allows the 5,070lbs (2,300kg) Quant e-Sportlimousine to reach 0-60 mph (100 km/h) in 2.8 seconds, making it as fast as the McLaren P1.

After making its debut at the 2014 Geneva Motor Show in March, the saltwater technology has now been certified for use on European roads.

This technology doesn't sound dangerous, there is a lot of salt in the world.

 

[hwl]

We did gas turbines in the 70's. It worked. Don't know about emissions but I bet its cleaner than diesel.

Why are we trying to reinvent the wheel. Use gas turbines until OHLE is across the whole network. Job done.

The NOx emissions from Gas Turbines are worse than Diesel as the temperatures and pressures involved are even higher than the peak temperature in diesel combustion.

 

[hwl]

Efficient? Well wind power has an input cost of zero, so efficiency doesn't actually matter, because the fuel is free. People often (mistakenly) compare efficiency and load factor (which for offshore wind is pushing 50% now). Wind & solar power spank nuclear on cost and investibility too...

There is plenty of investment required in the turbines and new distribution infrastructure (Turbines have a 20-25 year design life).
The efficiency of Hydrogen as a distribution method is appalling compared to grid transmission and OHLE - see the previous Hydrogen discussions on rail forums.

 

[Dai Corner]

Efficient? Well wind power has an input cost of zero, so efficiency doesn't actually matter, because the fuel is free. People often (mistakenly) compare efficiency and load factor (which for offshore wind is pushing 50% now). Wind & solar power spank nuclear on cost and investibility too...

Nature doesn't charge for coal, oil, uranium, rainfall or sunlight. The cost is in getting the energy they contain into a usable form at the point of use.

In the UK, NRs contracts with suppliers mean trains run on nuclear power (in so far as the electricity in a particular length of OHLE or conductor rail can be identified as coming from a particular power station!).

 

[InTheEastMids]

The NOx emissions from Gas Turbines are worse than Diesel as the temperatures and pressures involved are even higher than the peak temperature in diesel combustion.

Agree: powering trains with gas turbines is - at some level - making the case for OHLE. If you want a high efficiency GT (say 60%), and have good systems for NOx abatement, then it's probably better to do it with a large-scale powerplant. Although using it for rail would knock a bit of a hole in rail's CO2 credentials.

There is plenty of investment required in the turbines and new distribution infrastructure (Turbines have a 20-25 year design life).
The efficiency of Hydrogen as a distribution method is appalling compared to grid transmission and OHLE - see the previous Hydrogen discussions on rail forums.

Agree with your point about hydrogen. It may have a niche role, but I don't see a mainstream one on the railway (or in many other places)

I may not have been clear enough about "investibility" - i.e. the propensity of investors to take the risk. Wind, PV and electricity networks have all found it easy to attract investment, because they are low-risk technologies that produce stable revenues via various industry standard business models. Given Grayling's aspiration to get third party investment in rail, then private sector investment in OHLE could be backed against a stable revenue from the TOC. OHLE is just a special case of a power distribution network. Although whether they could do a better job than NR is a colossal unanswered question.

 

[Pete_uk]

What about salt water technology?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...60mph-2-8-seconds-just-approved-EU-roads.html



This technology doesn't sound dangerous, there is a lot of salt in the world.

With my tin foil hat on, I think it would be a case of people spending BIG money to make sure the tech doesn't see the light of day!

 

[D365]

With my tin foil hat on, do there exist any sources without the names “Daily” or “Mail”?

 

[47802]

Seems to be another clueless minister who doesn't appreciate that the lifespan of a Rail Rolling stock is far longer than a Road Vehicle, and the rail industry needs to tell this guy where to go.

A more sensible approach would be to say that new build Diesel Only trains would not be allowed from 2023 onwards that would allow time for the technologies to develop and it would mean that Diesel heavy franchises such as Northern due for renewal in the mid 2020's couldn't order new Diesel only trains, but wouldn't put a finite end on Diesel whether they be pure Diesel or Diesel Bi-mode.

 

[D365]

The trouble is that batteries (whether chemical, hydrogen-based or otherwise) are the weak point of any technology with onboard power. Charging times and chemical life cycles remain an issue when it comes to operational use.

 

[Dai Corner]

The trouble is that batteries (whether chemical, hydrogen-based or otherwise) are the weak point of any technology with onboard power. Charging times and chemical life cycles remain an issue when it comes to operational use.

Also energy density.

Diesel fuel is 48MJ/kg and 38.5 MJ/l
Lithium ion batteries are about 0.5 and 2

I.e batteries are a very large and heavy way of storing energy compared with fossil fuels. Obviously this is mitigated by having to have a Diesel engine and alternator to turn the fuel into electricity which results in pollution at the point of use.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

 

[Bletchleyite]

A more sensible approach would be to say that new build Diesel Only trains would not be allowed from 2023 onwards that would allow time for the technologies to develop and it would mean that Diesel heavy franchises such as Northern due for renewal in the mid 2020's couldn't order new Diesel only trains, but wouldn't put a finite end on Diesel whether they be pure Diesel or Diesel Bi-mode.

I'd go "from now on", i.e. the 195s and any "wmtrains" order being the last permissible ever. Classic bi-mode technology is hardly new, nor a difficult design problem; it's a DEMU (those have been around for years) with a pantograph, transformer and a big switch.

Necessity will soon get the likes of CAF having a design available.

 

[D365]

... and a big switch.

The big switch being a crucial part of testing/acceptance, or so I am told!

 

[Dai Corner]

Having a pantograph and transformer doesn't mean you have to operate the big switch and use them of course.

 

[47802]

I'd go "from now on", i.e. the 195s and any "wmtrains" order being the last permissible ever. Classic bi-mode technology is hardly new, nor a difficult design problem; it's a DEMU (those have been around for years) with a pantograph, transformer and a big switch.

Necessity will soon get the likes of CAF having a design available.

I wouldn't yet, the choice of new regional Bi-modes seems to be somewhat limited at present, do we want to be forcing excessive costs on franchises coming up for renewal in the near future that are likely to need new self powered trains.

To be honest I'm somewhat non-plused about the whole business of emmisions from Rail Vehicles when it must be a small fraction of the emmisions currently from Road Transport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Having a pantograph and transformer doesn't mean you have to operate the big switch and use them of course.

Precisely, though some reshuffling to ensure units with said "big switch" operate in the right pace would be a good thing too. If Northern have a load of classic DMUs (195s) and another operator wants some at the next franchise change (let's say ATW, as there is no real chance of electrification on their routes for many years yet), then they should order some CAF bi-modes and do a swap, allowing Northern to run them on their WCML routes for which they are perfect.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wouldn't yet, the choice of new regional Bi-modes seems to be somewhat limited at present, do we want to be forcing excessive costs on franchises coming up for renewal in the near future that are likely to need new self powered trains.

Out of the usual suspects it's only CAF who don't offer one but do offer a classic DMU. Siemens don't appear to be pushing DMUs at all at the moment, while I'm sure CAF will come up with one quickly if told "we're not buying your trains unless you do". Bombardier have stated they are out of the DMU game, and I would be amazed if Alstom's re-entry involved a classic DMU rather than a bi-mode. Hitachi appear not to offer a regional DMU of any kind, though I'm sure offering an AT200 bi-mode wouldn't be incredibly difficult based on a smaller engine and the Class 800 electronics.

 

[47802]

Deleted

 

[47802]

Out of the usual suspects it's only CAF who don't offer one but do offer a classic DMU. Siemens don't appear to be pushing DMUs at all at the moment, while I'm sure CAF will come up with one quickly if told "we're not buying your trains unless you do". Bombardier have stated they are out of the DMU game, and I would be amazed if Alstom's re-entry involved a classic DMU rather than a bi-mode. Hitachi appear not to offer a regional DMU of any kind, though I'm sure offering an AT200 bi-mode wouldn't be incredibly difficult based on a smaller engine and the Class 800 electronics.

How many Manufacturers have UK Regional Bi-mode other than Stadler? and while the Stadler unit is interesting I believe it has a significantly shorter range on diesel than a conventional DMU, would guess its significantly more expensive to Buy/Lease and then there is its quirky design with Articulation and Power Car Module, all of which maybe worthwhile if you have significant electric running to generate savings, but if routes mainly require self power then the realistic solution at present would seem to be a DMU.

 

[mushroomchow]

Perhaps Grayling is looking to keep the costs down by only wiring the uphill sections, with the bi-modes using diesel when on the downhill stretch?

Nah, just hit a sweet spot with the timetable crossover and use a pulley system to get the uphill service to the top. Worked for the BLR!

 

[Bletchleyite]

How many Manufacturers have UK Regional Bi-mode other than Stadler? and while the Stadler unit is interesting I believe it has a significantly shorter range on diesel than a conventional DMU, would guess its significantly more expensive to Buy/Lease and then there is its quirky design with Articulation and Power Car Module.

How many manufacturers have UK regional DMUs presently on offer other than Stadler and CAF?

That's only *one* more manufacturer to get on board to be where we are with DMUs at present.

As for range etc I think that is a quirk of the FLIRT. I see no particular reason why a 3 x 23/24m unit with the diesel gubbins on the end coaches and the electric gubbins on the middle coach (and traction motors on all of them fed from your choice of either) would be much different from a regular DMU in those ways.

OK, no 2-car units. But that's probably no bad thing.

 

[D365]

Having a pantograph and transformer doesn't mean you have to operate the big switch and use them of course.

One of the issues that still needs to be ironed out with any kind of “bi-mode” is the potential risk of back-feeding, particularly when it comes to neutral or isolated sections.

The other issue (procurement of EDMUs instead of DMMUs) is obviously the cost, as above.