Treasury Blocking electrification plans

[A0wen]

The reason I suggested Marylebone is that it is a very busy line in an area where bad air quality is a serious problem. Obviously a detailed design would need to be made, taking into account the challenges such as tunnels and the overlap with the tube (and loads of others). As far as I'm aware, no serious attempt has ever been made to do that for these busy lines. In any case the point wasn't the specific scheme, but rather that schemes that should be obvious haven't been progressed, whether the obvious scheme is in London, Birmingham or elsewhere.

I didn't mention Birmingham as I don't really know anything about it, other than that New Street station is very unpleasant due to the diesel fumes.

Also, you could have made your point without immediately being pretty rude against someone you've never met!

Marylebone isn't "very busy" in the scheme of things - in a normal hour it sends out 9 trains (looking between 3pm and 4pm today). The reason it hasn't been higher up the list of "to do" for NR or its predecessors is there have always been other, busier termini within London. Paddington was sending 50% more than Marylebone, virtually all diesel until the GWML was electrified.

Once out of London it runs through much less densely populated areas until it gets to Oxford or Birmingham - contrast this with the GWML or Midland Mainline.

All that's before you get to the challenges of bridges, shared infrastructure with London Underground etc - so it's not a "no brainer" - it would have been considered against many other schemes and the benefits of those were higher. And if you were looking at the Chiltern line the bigger gains would be to address the Birmingham area - if you take Moor Street it sends out 11 trains in a normal hour - more than Marylebone, all diesel, all running stop / start services through the West Mids. And it is stop/start services which cause more pollution than longer distance services (of the kind you see out of Marylebone) because the fuel consumption is higher on stop / start services.

 

[Nottingham59]

for one thing you've got the shared tracks with London Underground between Harrow on the Hill and Amersham

So that section's already electrified. Next.

if you were looking at the Chiltern line the bigger gains would be to address the Birmingham area

So that's a no brainer too.

 

[A0wen]

So that section's already electrified. Next.

But there's no guarantee it is to a standard which can take another 4 trains an hour load on it is unknown as it is London Underground infrastructure. It also means potentially ordering dual voltage EMUs which adds cost. Maybe battery / hybrid units will be the way forward - running battery from Amersham to Harrow - who knows? But that's part of the wider challenge for electrifying the Chiltern lines.

 

[Mikey C]

From an air quality pov, bimodes and selective electrification make a lot of sense for the Chiltern Lines, electrifying the London and Birmingham ends first, then worrying about the middle later on, maybe to be combined with EWR and work on the Birmingham to Banbury to Didcot line.

That would mean a whole new fleet of bimodes, but then the 168s would be very useful trains elsewhere so won't go to waste.

 

[Wolfie]

From an air quality pov, bimodes and selective electrification make a lot of sense for the Chiltern Lines, electrifying the London and Birmingham ends first, then worrying about the middle later on, maybe to be combined with EWR and work on the Birmingham to Banbury to Didcot line.

That would mean a whole new fleet of bimodes, but then the 168s would be very useful trains elsewhere so won't go to waste.

The HMT cheapo version would feature redeployment of all of the 769s initially.....

 

[Annetts key]

So, these thoughts about having more bi-mode operation, do you think this is a short term, a medium term or a long term solution?

And when road vehicles that use internal combustion engines start to become significantly less common than electric or other ‘clean’ fuels, which way do you see the cost of diesel going?

Never mind the problems with trying to argue in favour of the railways as being an environmentally good way to travel when the trains still burn fossil fuels for part of their journey and cars, busses and coaches don’t…

Although OHL is expensive in terms of up front infrastructure costs, over the long term it is supposed to be cheaper.

The current government appears to be ready to invest huge sums of money into expensive nuclear power stations. So why not in extending the OHL system?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

So, these thoughts about having more bi-mode operation, do you think this is a short term, a medium term or a long term solution?

And when road vehicles that use internal combustion engines start to become significantly less common than electric or other ‘clean’ fuels, which way do you see the cost of diesel going?

Never mind the problems with trying to argue in favour of the railways as being an environmentally good way to travel when the trains still burn fossil fuels for part of their journey and cars, busses and coaches don’t…

Although OHL is expensive in terms of up front infrastructure costs, over the long term it is supposed to be cheaper.

The current government appears to be ready to invest huge sums of money into expensive nuclear power stations. So why not in extending the OHL system?

Andrew Haines at the Transport Select Committee on 30th March whilst not rowing back on electrification is certainly more favouring hydrogen probably as he seems to what to play along with government thinking but nevertheless its indicative that we are unlikely to see any sign of a rolling programme this decade.

Andrew Haines: I think everyone recognises that to get to 2040 we would have to ramp up from where we currently are. What we are learning already is that there may be more scope for hydrogen than we said even two years ago, when we developed the TDNS. Our learning around hydrogen is really quite exciting. Hydrogen freight trains may not be ruled out.

The good news is that we can get on with “no regret” electrification schemes at the front end, but at the back end we might find that hydrogen is a bigger contributor than we have historically thought.

Even the schemes we have in construction currently aren't going to deliver much benefit this side of 2025 and even then the actual electric train mileage will be pretty low until the likes of TRU/MML get completed.

 

[modernrail]

No more than saying something is a "no brainer" with the implication others are either thick or ignorant at not seeing that when there is no demonstrable evidence that such a suggestion is a "no brainer".

It is not what ‘no brainier’ means at all is it though. It is quite a soft phrase whereas yours reply was seriously rude. People often use it in ways such as ‘seems like a no brainier to me but maybe I am missing something.’ Or ‘surely that is a no brainier’.

In fact somebody used it in an engineering meeting I was in this week. The person they said it to then said, ‘you would think so wouldn’t you, but unfortunately there are some complications with the underground services that make this no brainier a bit tricky’.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Andrew Haines at the Transport Select Committee on 30th March whilst not rowing back on electrification is certainly more favouring hydrogen probably as he seems to what to play along with government thinking but nevertheless its indicative that we are unlikely to see any sign of a rolling programme this decade.

Even the schemes we have in construction currently aren't going to deliver much benefit this side of 2025 and even then the actual electric train mileage will be pretty low until the likes of TRU/MML get completed.

Of course Andrew Haines would favour hydrogen, as would most politicians. Why ? Because it is a much neater arrangement for trains to "self power" than for the government to have to fund infrastructure ie electrification.

 

[Watershed]

Andrew Haines at the Transport Select Committee on 30th March whilst not rowing back on electrification is certainly more favouring hydrogen probably as he seems to what to play along with government thinking but nevertheless its indicative that we are unlikely to see any sign of a rolling programme this decade.

Even the schemes we have in construction currently aren't going to deliver much benefit this side of 2025 and even then the actual electric train mileage will be pretty low until the likes of TRU/MML get completed.

More of this "no regret" nonsense . Yes, the benefits of electrification won't be the same everywhere, and yes, he has to pander to the politicians - but it rankles nevertheless.

We have been dithering about electrifying lines in this country for years, decades even. In the intervening time, there is scarcely a single line where technological developments mean we would have regretted electrification.

The simple fact of the matter is that for the majority of lines, electrification is the only sensible decarbonisation option. Yet still the DfT insists that bionic duckweed will save the day, and (parts of) NR are playing along with that.

 

[A0wen]

More of this "no regret" nonsense . Yes, the benefits of electrification won't be the same everywhere, and yes, he has to pander to the politicians - but it rankles nevertheless.

We have been dithering about electrifying lines in this country for years, decades even. In the intervening time, there is scarcely a single line where technological developments mean we would have regretted electrification.

The simple fact of the matter is that for the majority of lines, electrification is the only sensible decarbonisation option. Yet still the DfT insists that bionic duckweed will save the day, and (parts of) NR are playing along with that.

I think referring to Hydrogen as "bionic duckweed" is being particularly disingenuous - they are already in use in Germany and have been since 2018. So it is a serious proposition and for a number of lines around the UK, particularly rural ones it makes alot of sense, far more than trying to wire the whole of the UK network with the associated costs both up front and ongoing.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I think referring to Hydrogen as "bionic duckweed" is being particularly disingenuous - they are already in use in Germany and have been since 2018. So it is a serious proposition and for a number of lines around the UK, particularly rural ones it makes alot of sense, far more than trying to wire the whole of the UK network with the associated costs both up front and ongoing.

I'm puzzled by the advantage of hydrogen.

As far as I know, it doesn't occur naturally (although someone I know thought it was 20% of the atmosphere ) and is best obtained by electrolysis of water. The energy used to do this is inevitably the same as that released when the process is reversed, to which must be losses due to inefficiency.

So all it seems to do is move the location of the energy source and not in itself be 'Green'. I can see the advantage in trains (no need for electrification of lines) but its use for, for instance, central heating seems illogical (why not use the electrical energy in the home rather than at an electrolysis point?) and in this case it might count as 'bionic duckweed'.

 

[Wolfie]

I think referring to Hydrogen as "bionic duckweed" is being particularly disingenuous - they are already in use in Germany and have been since 2018. So it is a serious proposition and for a number of lines around the UK, particularly rural ones it makes alot of sense, far more than trying to wire the whole of the UK network with the associated costs both up front and ongoing.

There is a non-insignificant cost in setting up the infrastructure for hydrogen usage, including the necessary supply chain, and some serious safety issues to be worked through.

 

[baza585]

I think referring to Hydrogen as "bionic duckweed" is being particularly disingenuous - they are already in use in Germany and have been since 2018. So it is a serious proposition and for a number of lines around the UK, particularly rural ones it makes alot of sense, far more than trying to wire the whole of the UK network with the associated costs both up front and ongoing.

Spot on. There are some lines for which electrification either via OHL or third rail infill is the best decarbonization solution. (eg Midland Main line)

There are many more lightly used lines for which hydrogen or batteries or bionic duckweed will achieve the same decarbonization at lower cost.

Treasury has a tough job deciding which public services will receive capital spend. Given the railway industry appears to be a permanent drain on the public finances, and has a track record of overspending and/or undercoating projects, their scepticism is unsurprising in my view.

 

[modernrail]

I'm puzzled by the advantage of hydrogen.

As far as I know, it doesn't occur naturally (although someone I know thought it was 20% of the atmosphere ) and is best obtained by electrolysis of water. The energy used to do this is inevitably the same as that released when the process is reversed, to which must be losses due to inefficiency.

So all it seems to do is move the location of the energy source and not in itself be 'Green'. I can see the advantage in trains (no need for electrification of lines) but its use for, for instance, central heating seems illogical (why not use the electrical energy in the home rather than at an electrolysis point?) and in this case it might count as 'bionic duckweed'.

The Govts attraction to use for heating is that they want to reuse the gas grid.

It is pretty illogical though looking at cost, efficiency, higher value alternative uses and quantities likely to be available. Most people I work with think hydrogen will replace gas in industrial use but it’s use as a B to C product will be minimal.

Recycling heat that is currently wasted and distributing it is probably far more sensible where there are good heat sources. A lot of energy ends its journey as heat. There is enough heat wasted globally to heat most buildings on earth. It is of course capturing it that is necessary - but in Scandinavia they already have small cities running on a high % of recycled waste and ambient heat.

We are looking at using water in now flooded mines, which is a steady 20C, energy from waste plants, sewerage works. There are loads of sources.

Sorry, definitely off topic.

 

[A0wen]

There is a non-insignificant cost in setting up the infrastructure for hydrogen usage, including the necessary supply chain, and some serious safety issues to be worked through.

Bit in bold - The same was said when the railways moved from coal to diesel.

And safety issues also exist with electric, diesel and petrol cars - it's usually about the storage and safe use of the energy source, in that sense hydrogen is no different. Too many people cite the Hindenburg claiming it "exploded" due to the hydrogen contained within it - yet there were other factors like the paint and other coatings used on its outer were highly flammable in their own right - had the Hindenburg been filled with Helium it would have burned in the same way.

 

[Annetts key]

This Wikipedia article describes the methods for Hydrogen production.

There are four main sources for the commercial production of hydrogen: natural gas, oil, coal, and electrolysis; which account for 48%, 30%, 18% and 4% of the world's hydrogen production respectively.[6] Fossil fuels are the dominant source of industrial hydrogen.[7] Carbon dioxide can be separated from natural gas with a 70–85% efficiency for hydrogen production and from other hydrocarbons to varying degrees of efficiency.[8] Specifically, bulk hydrogen is usually produced by the steam reforming of methane or natural gas.[9]

Follow the link for more.

It may be considered for very low frequency services on non-electrified lines or where a train travels over non-electrified lines. But you could also use biofuels like some busses and trucks use instead.

So, as in road transport, hydrogen trains are likely to be a distraction rather than a good solution for the majority of services.

I see absolutely no point in investing large amounts of money in electrolysis plants, hydrogen storage and distribution systems and hydrogen trains. Over the long term it will be more expensive than OHL systems for any railway that has a reasonably regular service.

 

[Taunton]

It is not what ‘no brainer’ means at all is it though. It is quite a soft phrase whereas yours reply was seriously rude. People often use it in ways such as ‘seems like a no brainier to me but maybe I am missing something.’ Or ‘surely that is a no brainier’.

In fact somebody used it in an engineering meeting I was in this week. The person they said it to then said, ‘you would think so wouldn’t you, but unfortunately there are some complications with the underground services that make this no brainier a bit tricky’.

That's not quite so, and if used in a business meeting I will challenge it, because it commonly seems to go along with the proposer not having thought things through. To me it goes along with people inserting "obviously" in their sentences, along with "everybody knows that", opening put-downs to prevent discussion.

Back to The Treasury, and they have long experience of limited government funds being allocated which are then squandered, or ridiculously under-estimated for time, cost, practicality, or revenue/usage (or all of that), and I'm afraid the railway is fairly well up the list here, whether 1950s Modernisation Plan locomotives, or Crossrail. So they are rightfully cautious and critical.

 

[Trainbike46]

That's not quite so, and if used in a business meeting I will challenge it, because it commonly seems to go along with the proposer not having thought things through. To me it goes along with people inserting "obviously" in their sentences, along with "everybody knows that", opening put-downs to prevent discussion.

While it can be used that way, that was not what I was trying to do. My intention here was to refer to electrification schemes with relatively big benefits, which if they had been in other european countries would probably have been electrified years ago. I picked Marylebone as a more or less random example, because of the high number of services for an electrified line with about 9 an hour, the location to some of the most polluted areas in london and the fact that, depending on scheme design, part of the LU electrification could be used. In other countries electrification schemes have been progressed because of financial reasons on lines that only have an halfhourly service, so compared to that the Marylebone lines are rather busy! Maybe the snow hill lines in Birmingham would have been a better example, but as I said before I know very little about them (other than that they share some track with Chiltern, so could possibly be the same scheme, once again depending on exact design).

and if used in a business meeting I will challenge it,

But hopefully in a more tactful manner than @A0wen did on the forum

Back to The Treasury, and they have long experience of limited government funds being allocated which are then squandered, or ridiculously under-estimated for time, cost, practicality, or revenue/usage (or all of that), and I'm afraid the railway is fairly well up the list here, whether 1950s Modernisation Plan locomotives, or Crossrail. So they are rightfully cautious and critical.

But there is also a history of the treasury opposing (or even blocking) relatively small expenditure now, for which there is quite strong evidence that it would save significant amounts of money over the long term. And I don't just mean on the railway, but across the board!

By no means do I mean that the railway shouldn't get better at cost control, or that it shouldn't get better at making the case for specific investment. Both of those are necessary, but the treasury is obsessed with the exact expenditure today, and does not consider the long term, even for the public purse. And this is something that needs to be fixed, though that would probably require a change in government

 

[A0wen]

While it can be used that way, that was not what I was trying to do. My intention here was to refer to electrification schemes with relatively big benefits, which if they had been in other european countries would probably have been electrified years ago. I picked Marylebone as a more or less random example, because of the high number of services for an electrified line with about 9 an hour, the location to some of the most polluted areas in london and the fact that, depending on scheme design, part of the LU electrification could be used. In other countries electrification schemes have been progressed because of financial reasons on lines that only have an halfhourly service, so compared to that the Marylebone lines are rather busy! Maybe the snow hill lines in Birmingham would have been a better example, but as I said before I know very little about them (other than that they share some track with Chiltern, so could possibly be the same scheme, once again depending on exact design).

Bit in bold - and lines with a similar level of service to that have also been electrified in the UK - when originally electrified in the early 1980s the Bedpan lines were every 30 min outer suburban Bedford - St Pancras and every 30 minutes Luton - Moorgate as inner suburban. More recently the extension of the Midland Mainline electrification to Corby has been done to support a 2 tph between Bedford and Corby.

There are also branches like Braintree, Wickford or St Albans Abbey, none of which sustain more than 2tph - all wired after the lines they connected to were.

So to claim that in Europe they routinely electrify lines with a 2tph frequency which we in the UK wouldn't touch is demonstrable nonsense.

 

[Trainbike46]

Bit in bold - and lines with a similar level of service to that have also been electrified in the UK - when originally electrified in the early 1980s the Bedpan lines were every 30 min outer suburban Bedford - St Pancras and every 30 minutes Luton - Moorgate as inner suburban. More recently the extension of the Midland Mainline electrification to Corby has been done to support a 2 tph between Bedford and Corby.

And there have been lines in the UK with lower levels of service that have been electrified, such as Ely-King's Lynn. That's not the point. The point is that it was found to be a lot cheaper to electrify those 2tph lines compared to continuing with diesel.

So to claim that in Europe they routinely electrify lines with a 2tph frequency which we in the UK wouldn't touch is demonstrable nonsense.

That's not what I said. The point was that if it is already cheaper to electrify a line that has 2tph, a line with 9tph, even if there are hard bits to sort out, should be cheaper compared to continuing on diesel.

And compared to most european countries the UK has a demonstrably slower pace of electrification, and way more important/busy lines that have had no electrification progress at all.

 

[Ken H]

Bit in bold - and lines with a similar level of service to that have also been electrified in the UK - when originally electrified in the early 1980s the Bedpan lines were every 30 min outer suburban Bedford - St Pancras and every 30 minutes Luton - Moorgate as inner suburban. More recently the extension of the Midland Mainline electrification to Corby has been done to support a 2 tph between Bedford and Corby.

There are also branches like Braintree, Wickford or St Albans Abbey, none of which sustain more than 2tph - all wired after the lines they connected to were.

So to claim that in Europe they routinely electrify lines with a 2tph frequency which we in the UK wouldn't touch is demonstrable nonsense.

But they were add-ons to an existing electrified area. Or are going to be. Corby is a short branch of what will be an electrified main line and electrifying it will cut more diesel train miles than its length.

 

[modernrail]

This Wikipedia article describes the methods for Hydrogen production.


Follow the link for more.

It may be considered for very low frequency services on non-electrified lines or where a train travels over non-electrified lines. But you could also use biofuels like some busses and trucks use instead.

So, as in road transport, hydrogen trains are likely to be a distraction rather than a good solution for the majority of services.

I see absolutely no point in investing large amounts of money in electrolysis plants, hydrogen storage and distribution systems and hydrogen trains. Over the long term it will be more expensive than OHL systems for any railway that has a reasonably regular service.

Current hydrogen production trends/proportions are likely to change and shift massively towards green hydrogen. As usual, our lot subsidising the blue hydrogen to the tune of billions to back blue hydrogen will end up being another expensive mistake wasting billions of our increasingly limited cash.

Many I talk to on this think green hydrogen will end up being produced in places like North Africa at massive scale and shipped over and that the economics will work much better than blue hydrogen fairly quickly. The loudest lobby group managed to convince the Gov, who it is already cosy with, otherwise.

Now we have a Future Systems Operator (recently announced) for our energy systems which is a piece of good news, our generators can start working through if electrolysis is sensible on the domestic side, against competing uses for off peak (and therefore lower priced) electricity.

The one thing I think I am fairly sure on is that if rail does want to go for hydrogen in a fairly big way, DfT/GBR should broker long term deals with domestic production. There will be some domestic production whatever happens and the railways are a perfect long term customer. That deal would offer both sides certainty. There will end up being a commodity style market price for green hydrogen (and many think that will drop below blue hydrogen quickly if it’s own accord). DfT can get in early and do a good deal for the railways, with a source of supply that is truly green and not subject risk on international transportation.

The Cabinet Office did a similar thing on energy prices in general, a framework deal that all public bodies can access and most do. Not sure how the power price compares to whatever NR pays for it’s French nuclear though.

 

[Mikey C]

So, these thoughts about having more bi-mode operation, do you think this is a short term, a medium term or a long term solution?

And when road vehicles that use internal combustion engines start to become significantly less common than electric or other ‘clean’ fuels, which way do you see the cost of diesel going?

Never mind the problems with trying to argue in favour of the railways as being an environmentally good way to travel when the trains still burn fossil fuels for part of their journey and cars, busses and coaches don’t…

Although OHL is expensive in terms of up front infrastructure costs, over the long term it is supposed to be cheaper.

The current government appears to be ready to invest huge sums of money into expensive nuclear power stations. So why not in extending the OHL system?

Even if the government was to announce next week a rolling programme to electrify ever line in the country, how long would it take 20 years? 30 years? Both due to the cost, and the restricted number of skilled workers.

Those nuclear power stations will take at least 10 years to be generating any electricity anyway, if not longer.

And there have been lines in the UK with lower levels of service that have been electrified, such as Ely-King's Lynn. That's not the point. The point is that it was found to be a lot cheaper to electrify those 2tph lines compared to continuing with diesel.


That's not what I said. The point was that if it is already cheaper to electrify a line that has 2tph, a line with 9tph, even if there are hard bits to sort out, should be cheaper compared to continuing on diesel.

And compared to most european countries the UK has a demonstrably slower pace of electrification, and way more important/busy lines that have had no electrification progress at all.

The lack of Bimodes (whether diesel or battery) made that an easier decision to avoid running diesels under wires. Maybe that line wouldn't have been electrified if Stadler 755s were available 30 years ago!

 

[Taunton]

While it can be used that way, that was not what I was trying to do. My intention here was to refer to electrification schemes with relatively big benefits, which if they had been in other european countries would probably have been electrified years ago. I picked Marylebone as a more or less random example, because of the high number of services for an electrified line with about 9 an hour, the location to some of the most polluted areas in london and the fact that, depending on scheme design, part of the LU electrification could be used. In other countries electrification schemes have been progressed because of financial reasons on lines that only have an halfhourly service, so compared to that the Marylebone lines are rather busy! Maybe the snow hill lines in Birmingham would have been a better example, but as I said before I know very little about them (other than that they share some track with Chiltern, so could possibly be the same scheme, once again depending on exact design).

Two things. Firstly it wouldn't be just the Marylebone approach with n trains an hour which would need electrification, it would be for the network, potentially out to Birmingham, through some significantly open country. This is one of the problems with electrification of diesel lines which fan out, and was why Paddington long was inappropriate for it, because so much would traditionally have needed to stay diesel. Bi-mode does seem not all it is cracked up to be. Oh, and before we start running DC from Neasden to Amersham, the existing LU power supply is doubtless sized to run only LU trains.

Secondly, if we are going to be making European comparisons for the Treasury, they will want us to start with explaining to them why electrification per track-km turns out to be so much more expensive than across the rest of Europe. There's a reason why Switzerland got fully electrified so early, and that was compared to current UK schemes it didn't cost a lot, and apparently new work there still doesn't.

 

[Ken H]

Two things. Firstly it wouldn't be just the Marylebone approach with n trains an hour which would need electrification, it would be for the network, potentially out to Birmingham, through some significantly open country. This is one of the problems with electrification of diesel lines which fan out, and was why Paddington long was inappropriate for it, because so much would traditionally have needed to stay diesel. Bi-mode does seem not all it is cracked up to be. Oh, and before we start running DC from Neasden to Amersham, the existing LU power supply is doubtless sized to run only LU trains.

Secondly, if we are going to be making European comparisons for the Treasury, they will want us to start with explaining to them why electrification per track-km turns out to be so much more expensive than across the rest of Europe. There's a reason why Switzerland got fully electrified so early, and that was compared to current UK schemes it didn't cost a lot, and apparently new work there still doesn't.

One big cost of UK* infrastructure enhancements (incl electrification) is the payment to TOC's for the disruption to their services, loss of revenue, and the cost of buses or diverted trains. I believe that is unique to the UK railway.

*Excluding Northern Ireland where the funding is totally different

 

[A0wen]

But they were add-ons to an existing electrified area. Or are going to be. Corby is a short branch of what will be an electrified main line and electrifying it will cut more diesel train miles than its length.

That's as maybe - but what were the frequencies on the ECML north of Newcastle when that was electrified ? And for how many electric trains per hour ? I don't think London - Edinburgh has ever been more than 1tph (happy to be corrected).

 

[Ken H]

That's as maybe - but what were the frequencies on the ECML north of Newcastle when that was electrified ? And for how many electric trains per hour ? I don't think London - Edinburgh has ever been more than 1tph (happy to be corrected).

They envisaged 140 mph tilting trains with quite a lot of electrically hauled freight. And sleepers. Which is why cl91 has the taper, and the blunt end cab. for non inter-city work.
I think it would have been electrified today, what with bimodes. Probably to Doncaster with trains switching the diesel there - even to Leeds.

But then back in those days where were not that many electrically hauled trains north of Crewe/weaver Jct.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Current hydrogen production trends/proportions are likely to change and shift massively towards green hydrogen. As usual, our lot subsidising the blue hydrogen to the tune of billions to back blue hydrogen will end up being another expensive mistake wasting billions of our increasingly limited cash.

Many I talk to on this think green hydrogen will end up being produced in places like North Africa at massive scale and shipped over and that the economics will work much better than blue hydrogen fairly quickly. The loudest lobby group managed to convince the Gov, who it is already cosy with, otherwise.

Now we have a Future Systems Operator (recently announced) for our energy systems which is a piece of good news, our generators can start working through if electrolysis is sensible on the domestic side, against competing uses for off peak (and therefore lower priced) electricity.

The one thing I think I am fairly sure on is that if rail does want to go for hydrogen in a fairly big way, DfT/GBR should broker long term deals with domestic production. There will be some domestic production whatever happens and the railways are a perfect long term customer. That deal would offer both sides certainty. There will end up being a commodity style market price for green hydrogen (and many think that will drop below blue hydrogen quickly if it’s own accord). DfT can get in early and do a good deal for the railways, with a source of supply that is truly green and not subject risk on international transportation.

The Cabinet Office did a similar thing on energy prices in general, a framework deal that all public bodies can access and most do. Not sure how the power price compares to whatever NR pays for it’s French nuclear though.

My original point was that, as far as I know (and I am happy to be corrected) there are virtually no natural supplies of hydrogen, and the energy created by hydrogen oxidation is likely to be similar to the energy required for its extraction. The only advantage would seem to be to have the creation at a point where there is a surplus of electrical energy, balancing that against the transmission costs to point of use.

It does seem to me that those favouring hydrogen do not explain how it will be done in detail and the advantages over using the energy involved more directly. For a start, even an explanation of the technical terms 'green hydrogen' and 'blue hydrogen' would help to understand the principles.

 

[Trainbike46]

It does seem to me that those favouring hydrogen do not explain how it will be done in detail and the advantages over using the energy involved more directly. For a start, even an explanation of the technical terms 'green hydrogen' and 'blue hydrogen' would help to understand the principles.

Green hydrogen refers to hydrogen gas produced by electrolysis of water using renewable (solar/wind/hydropower) only, blue hydrogen, in contrast, refers to hydrogen gas produced from fossil fuels, such as through methane steam reformation, where the CO2 produced is captured and stored in some manner to ensure it does not end up in the atmosphere