For railfreight, emissions are one third of those made moving the same freight by road.
That's not what he said. Reading the quote the minister referred to diesel-only trains.
The Class 88 has, I think, the lowest output diesel engine in the range of similar locos. Other have much larger diesel engines. So we shouldn't assume the Class 88 is typical of this type of locomotive.
Exactly my point. Playing about with transformer/control electronics is no substitute for a larger diesel engine.
Over and above that, it is phrased as an aspiration, not a firm commitment. Given the ability of Governments to drop firm commitments I think aspirations are well down the pecking order!
There's probably a "Yes, Minister" sketch about the difference.....
Yes, I think most, if not all, bi-mode locos world wide have greater capability in electric mode than diesel (obviously ignoring last mile units like 88s).
Yes. After all, a ministers influence last only until he loses his job, either at a reshuffle or election.
The problem is that you are creating a phenomenally expensive loco, in a market (railfreight) that operates on thin margins. One loco can only ever be in one place at one time, so can only use one power mode at a time. You're also subject to the same issues as IEP: it's either an overweight electric or an under-powered diesel. It's a very, very niche market for such locos.
Which is exactly where the German hydrogen fleet is going to be based. You don't get much further from the action than in the flat lands, and I mean flat lands, running out towards the North Sea northwest of Oldenburg.
Nottingham has 30-odd, soon to be 50-odd, Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses. There are also quite a few in other countries, typically with large tanks on the roof of a single decker, but the use with double-deckers in Nottingham suggests the fuel tank must be quite compact. There appears to be relatively little modification compared with a standard diesel bus, and although a specialist filling station is needed the gas can just be taken from the mains. Nottingham purchase their gas from a bio-gas supplier, but as with electricity suppliers they just need to inject the appropriate amount into the grid rather than having to build a pipeline to the filling station or arrange road deliveries as would have to be done with hydrogen. Emissions are stated to be much lower and the buses slightly cheaper to run though more expensive to buy and to maintain the filling station.
The energy density of CNG is much less than LNG. OK for cars and urban buses, but for HGVs, rail and shipping LNG is the better option. You don't need to liquefy the gas yourself - the Grain LNG terminal in Kent has a truck loading facility, so LNG can be supplied from there to the user.
To be completely honest, the Stadler option would be better. Not only do they usually deliver on time (if you ignore the Vossloh loco acquisition), but they offer 21st century features such as platform-level entrances and cantilevered seats (whenever I travel with large bags, I am thankful for both of those features).
But then, as with hydrogen, you're back to having to construct a national distribution network (are LNG pipelines even possible?) or accept a big increase in road deliveries. I agree diesel is usually delivered to destination by road, but it probably does most of its land journey by pipeline.
