Hydrogen powered trains ?

[Andy25]

yes they are, my bad.


all very well if the vent to open air when out in the country but worst case it could vent into an enclosed space like a tunnel and all it would take is a spark from a passing electric train's pantograph to ignite. Agreed it is very unlikely but still possible and therefore a real risk.

You're right but if the adjacent line has ole I doubt a hydrogen train would even be there.

Hydrogen will only ever make sense on unelectrifed lines where the cost of electrification is prohibitive.

If there's lines you'd always go for an emu.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

S

It is a bit more complicated because hydrogen at atmospheric pressure is far too bulky to use as a portable energy store.
It must be compressed to a great pressure to keep the bulk down. Pumping this ultra high pressure and highly flammable gas into a rail vehicle would be more involved than filling with diesel fuel which only needs a hose and a pump.
Also, any bulk storage would need a multitude of relatively small high pressure tanks, large tanks are impossible at the high pressures needed.

Liquified hydrogen can be stored at modest pressures but is even more complex due to the extreme low temperatures required. Any store of liquified hydrogen will be continually boiling away if not used, this represents both a financial loss and a fire/explosion risk.

So if it is as difficult as you say it is then is it even possible to store Hydrogen at depots at all? Also, if it is, could you transport it by rail in specialised wagons.

 

[gingertom]

You're right but if the adjacent line has ole I doubt a hydrogen train would even be there.

Hydrogen will only ever make sense on unelectrifed lines where the cost of electrification is prohibitive.

If there's lines you'd always go for an emu.

Trouble is most main line terminals are electrified to some extent so there would have to be some under the wires running for the first part of the journey. From the Scottish perspective that's both Glasgow terminals and Edinburgh, so you're ruling out many potential routes.

 

[gingertom]

The highest range I've seen on battery train is 80-100km. Bombardier did a trial and with 50km range needed almost 15tonnes of battery.

Hydrogen has a range of nearer 1000km and would be lighter than an equivalent demu because a fuel cell weighs considerably less than a diesel engine even when you consider the hydrogen tanks vs diesel tanks.

taking the weight argument a stage further. Reducing the weight of any train reduces the amount of energy required to move it so extends its range. Stadler's Flirt concept of having articulated Jacobs bogies reduces the overall weight of the train by reducing the number of bogies needed- what's the weight of a bogie? Their power pod could house batteries and/or hydrogen tanks in a much lighter package than a 321. I'm not a Stadler saleman btw, I think all eyes will be on GA to see how well theirs perform.

 

[Andy25]

Trouble is most main line terminals are electrified to some extent so there would have to be some under the wires running for the first part of the journey. From the Scottish perspective that's both Glasgow terminals and Edinburgh, so you're ruling out many potential routes.

Possibly, but it's definitely going to be a niche solution and I bet there's lots of rural Highland routes that could benefit.

I believe the Oxford - Cambridge route has been suggested and some of the Merseyside routes around Widnes.

But thinking about it even a spark from an adjacent train is extremely unlikely to get close enough to ignite a leak as there's got to be 6-8 feet gap and the hydrogen would head straight up.

 

[43096]

The highest range I've seen on battery train is 80-100km. Bombardier did a trial and with 50km range needed almost 15tonnes of battery.

Hydrogen has a range of nearer 1000km and would be lighter than an equivalent demu because a fuel cell weighs considerably less than a diesel engine even when you consider the hydrogen tanks vs diesel tanks.

What’s the cost of producing the hydrogen and what effect does that have on the environment?

There’s a big danger here that persuing these alternative fuels actually uses more energy and causes more damage than simply using diesels.

 

[Andy25]

What’s the cost of producing the hydrogen and what effect does that have on the environment?

There’s a big danger here that persuing these alternative fuels actually uses more energy and causes more damage than simply using diesels.

Current introduction will use waste hydrogen from local industry so impact is low.

Generation using electricity is inefficient so a poor choice if using coal fired power but the trial unit in Germany intends to install a windfarm that will produce the electricity needed to generate sufficient fuel. As long as the energy source is green it doesn't really matter how efficient the process is. And if it is generated near where it is need the transport effects can be low too.

 

[43096]

As long as the energy source is green it doesn't really matter how efficient the process is.

It does matter, because it then costs more to produce as you need more energy. That translates into higher running costs which can only be recovered from jacking fares up or taxpayer subsidy. Neither of which are acceptable.

Until the costs can be got down to a comparable level it should be filed under “bionic duckweed”.

 

[Andy25]

It does matter, because it then costs more to produce as you need more energy. That translates into higher running costs which can only be recovered from jacking fares up or taxpayer subsidy. Neither of which are acceptable.

Until the costs can be got down to a comparable level it should be filed under “bionic duckweed”.

It doesn't really cost more to produce, wind and solar energy are free fuel. Solar especially would have low maintenace and wind maintenace is much lower than any fossil fuel. Lots of solar real estate on the roof of a depot.

 

[edwin_m]

It doesn't really cost more to produce, wind and solar energy are free fuel. Solar especially would have low maintenace and wind maintenace is much lower than any fossil fuel. Lots of solar real estate on the roof of a depot.

We're not there yet. Using wind and solar to produce hydrogen today would involve replacing the electricity they produce by power from fossil fuels, except on those very rare very windy or very sunny days when renewable enery is effectively thrown away. Perhaps this will change as the amount of renewable energy plant increases and those days become more common, when hydrogen may become part of the solution to storing energy.

 

[Andy25]

We're not there yet. Using wind and solar to produce hydrogen today would involve replacing the electricity they produce by power from fossil fuels, except on those very rare very windy or very sunny days when renewable enery is effectively thrown away. Perhaps this will change as the amount of renewable energy plant increases and those days become more common, when hydrogen may become part of the solution to storing energy.

I believe the plan in Germany is to build a dedicated wind farm at the refueling station. A company has been chosen to build it but while that is being developed it is being delivered in.

Once that is online that's a step change from shipping in diesel.

 

[LOL The Irony]

agreed. Porterbrook's dabble in hydrogen technology is to be a 321, hopefully they will have been retractioned with AC motors? What about auxiliaries such as compressors, door openers and windscreen wipers won't have DC motors with commutators either?

Isn't it going to be a 769? Angel are using a 321.

 

[Andy25]

Isn't it going to be a 769? Angel are using a 321.

321's are Eversholt and are considering a hydrogen retraction.

769 is looking at retrofitting a Rolls Royce (MTU) diesel engine to an EMU to make it a hybrid. No hydrogen.

I think Birmingham University are looking at doing some sort of demonstrator but can't remember what class and it won't be a released in to service.

 

[LOL The Irony]

769 is looking at retrofitting a Rolls Royce (MTU) diesel engine to an EMU to make it a hybrid. No hydrogen.

Ahem. https://www.railwaygazette.com/news...-train-demonstrator-to-be-tested-in-2019.html

I think Birmingham University are looking at doing some sort of demonstrator but can't remember what class and it won't be a released in to service.

That'll be the hydrogen 769.

 

[LOL The Irony]

769 is looking at retrofitting a Rolls Royce (MTU) diesel engine to an EMU to make it a hybrid.

You've gotten confused. The 769's are being fitted with MAN engines. The 170's are the one's being fitted with MTU's as part of a hybrid system.

 

[edwin_m]

I believe the plan in Germany is to build a dedicated wind farm at the refueling station. A company has been chosen to build it but while that is being developed it is being delivered in.

Once that is online that's a step change from shipping in diesel.

But they could easily plug that wind farm into the grid and use the electricity elsewhere, for example to reduce the use of brown coal to produce electricity in other parts of Germany - one of the most polluting fuels there is. So any claim that this project reduces carbon emissions is highly questionable.

 

[InTheEastMids]

But they could easily plug that wind farm into the grid and use the electricity elsewhere

Nope. Germany has insufficient network capacity - particularly North-South, meaning German network operators are spending a lot of money on constraint payments for stopping wind farms in Northern Germany generating

 

[43096]

I believe the plan in Germany is to build a dedicated wind farm at the refueling station. A company has been chosen to build it but while that is being developed it is being delivered in.

Once that is online that's a step change from shipping in diesel.

But given that you need more energy to produce it, you need more generating capacity ie bigger/more wind turbines. Which costs more and has to be recovered from somewhere.

You seem to think this is some sort of utopian solution. It isn’t.

 

[Andy25]

But given that you need more energy to produce it, you need more generating capacity ie bigger/more wind turbines. Which costs more and has to be recovered from somewhere.

You seem to think this is some sort of utopian solution. It isn’t.

You're right let's stick with diesel

 

[43096]

You're right let's stick with diesel

No. We should electrify.

 

[Andy25]

No. We should electrify.

It's not cost effective everywhere, it makes everything much simpler if we can develop self propelled alternatives.

 

[Ken H]

It's not cost effective everywhere, it makes everything much simpler if we can develop self propelled alternatives.

we could if we went back to BR Mk3b design. The current offer is just too expensive.

 

[Andy25]

we could if we went back to BR Mk3b design. The current offer is just too expensive.

Whilst I'm sure there's a happy medium between BR and TSI I don't think going back to old designs is the way forward.

Self propelled cuts out infrastructure on the track almost completely and the cost for the trains is paid of 35 years in the lease cost.

 

[Ken H]

Whilst I'm sure there's a happy medium between BR and TSI I don't think going back to old designs is the way forward.

Self propelled cuts out infrastructure on the track almost completely and the cost for the trains is paid of 35 years in the lease cost.

self propelled by what

Hydrogen - you have to make it by electrolosys, and that uses energy - so if you burn fossil fuels, where is the benefit?
OK we are doing quite well with wind just now - but look at the mix on Tuesday - https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
And we learned having inflammable gasses on trains was a bad idea in the days of gas lit coaches and horrible train fires.

gas. well thats a fossil fuel.

batteries. do they have the range except when the journey is mostly electric and the last bit is unwired.

And all this stuff costs weight. How much weight is added to a Class 319 to make it bi-mode? Thats weight it drags round all the time when on the electric. Moving weight takes energy.

Only in the UK to we muck about like this. is Belgium, Netherlands and Germany so wrong with almost 100% electrified railway?

 

[InTheEastMids]

self propelled by what

Hydrogen - you have to make it by electrolosys, and that uses energy - so if you burn fossil fuels, where is the benefit?
OK we are doing quite well with wind just now - but look at the mix on Tuesday - https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
And we learned having inflammable gasses on trains was a bad idea in the days of gas lit coaches and horrible train fires.

gas. well thats a fossil fuel.

batteries. do they have the range except when the journey is mostly electric and the last bit is unwired.

And all this stuff costs weight. How much weight is added to a Class 319 to make it bi-mode? Thats weight it drags round all the time when on the electric. Moving weight takes energy.

Re hydrogen: You can also make it via reformation of natural gas, with the CO2 going into carbon capture and storage.
The business case for electrolysis today rests on the lack of electricity network capacity to get it to other end-users. This is certainly an issue in large parts of South-West England.

Re: Inflammable gases on trains. Not saying that hydrogen is not hazardous, but different hazards, it's not going to be piped inside carriages with combustible interiors to use in lighting. Brittany Ferries new Honfleur will be natural gas powered, as are quite a few cars in Europe and a number of HGVs. Are they all intrinsically unsafe? What is so special about a rail vehicle?

 

[Llanigraham]

It is a bit more complicated because hydrogen at atmospheric pressure is far too bulky to use as a portable energy store.
It must be compressed to a great pressure to keep the bulk down. Pumping this ultra high pressure and highly flammable gas into a rail vehicle would be more involved than filling with diesel fuel which only needs a hose and a pump.
Also, any bulk storage would need a multitude of relatively small high pressure tanks, large tanks are impossible at the high pressures needed.

Liquified hydrogen can be stored at modest pressures but is even more complex due to the extreme low temperatures required. Any store of liquified hydrogen will be continually boiling away if not used, this represents both a financial loss and a fire/explosion risk.

If it is so difficult how come there are now 2 cars produced by Riversimple in Llandrindod Wells on the road, and a hydrogen refuelling point has just been opened in Abergavenny?
They seem to be managing!

 

[broadgage]

S


So if it is as difficult as you say it is then is it even possible to store Hydrogen at depots at all? Also, if it is, could you transport it by rail in specialised wagons.

I have no doubt that it COULD be stored at depots, but the need for either extreme pressures OR for extreme low temperatures, together with the highly explosive properties of hydrogen would add considerable costs and complications.
Likewise hydrogen could probably be transported by rail, but at very considerable costs.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Only in the UK to we muck about like this. is Belgium, Netherlands and Germany so wrong with almost 100% electrified railway?

Because they've already done it? Now the infrastructure is there, there's no case for ripping it down until end-of-life. However,

there is now justifiable uncertainty about whether really long-term investments in electrification are good ideas except on routes with high energy consumption - the "bionic duckweed" stuff about future techs making electrification obsolete was total rubbish in 2007, but it isn't now.​

In the UK, the basic issue is that we have failed to do electrification well.
So, the idea of wind/solar -> [hydrogen] -> fuel cell/battery hybrid is a bet on technologies where costs continue to fall.
Whereas full electrification is a bet on a solution where costs have risen steeply.
Ask the nuclear power industry how that's working out (Spoiler: Really, really badly).

If you look at track and trains as an integrated system, then a sub-optimally heavy train with higher operating costs may in many cases be better value than the optimised electric train that you don't get any benefit from until you've spent 5+ years ploughing capital investment into wiring.
It'd be great to have the techno-economic models that would give us an idea about the tipping points. We can probably all agree that is better for HS2 (long-distance, high intensity, high speed), and that batteries may well be the answer for a Bedford-Bletchley

shuttle ​

(short distance, low intensity, low speed) . There's quite a lot of middle ground, but understanding that well requires skilled modellers, good data and time.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

I have no doubt that it COULD be stored at depots, but the need for either extreme pressures OR for extreme low temperatures, together with the highly explosive properties of hydrogen would add considerable costs and complications.
Likewise hydrogen could probably be transported by rail, but at very considerable costs.

So its possible, but maybe not economically viable at this point. Interesting. We will just have to see what happens in the next 20 years.

 

[Andy25]

So its possible, but maybe not economically viable at this point. Interesting. We will just have to see what happens in the next 20 years.

It's possible now, the German network using the iLint trains has a storage tank at one of the depots.

Slight confusion in some of the posts above too, extreme cold is only needed when you're running at the higher pressures fo combat the heat generated by friction when the gassed pass through pipes. If you run at a lower pressure the chilling isn't needed. The iLint runs at a pressure high enough to increase capacity enough but not so high that it needs to be chilled. This makes the vehicle architecture simpler.