Hydroflex - testing

[norbitonflyer]

Can't say I do, however the deaths on Hindenburg were largely caused by the airship dropping out of the sky, something which trains do not often do. The hydrogen had departed and it was the burning ship which burnt the passengers.


Largely yes, it was a luxury form of transport, even in the 1970's the Canberra had a crew ratio of one to every 2 passengers.

The Queen Mary carries 2695 passengers and 1253 crew

The Titanic had 1,316 passengers and 913 crew, the crew therefore being 41% of those on board. (38% of the passengers and 24% of the crew survived)

 

[birchesgreen]

Yes electrification is always the answer, doesn't stop this project being interesting though.

 

[DerekC]

Oh dear - this is turning into the usual grump-off which seems to happen whenever the subject of hydrogen is mentioned.

I recommend reading the RSSB- led Rail Decarbonisation Task Force's report to Ministers and the just-published Network Rail "Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy". There are separate threads on both of these. They set out very clearly the options facing the railway and the potential solutions, of which hydrogen is one.

There are big uncertainties about everything just now - and in this context the big ones are:

1) Can Network Rail get its electrification costs down and will the government commit to a rolling programme, given current financial situation? If yes to both these, how far can electrification economically go? What will we do about the rest?

2) What range can battery-only or battery-EMU hybrids (like the IPEMU) be developed to deliver?

3) Can hydrogen be developed to the point where it provides cost-effective and safe energy storage for a medium range option?

This is the background for the Hydroflex trial. Of course there is room for debate, but please keep it well-informed!

 

[DustyBin]

For all the talk about decarbonisation and further electrification, Northern are running DMU’s on a fully electrified route, surely there’s an easy win there? Especially when they had EMU’s stored at a depot along said route. I’m talking about Newcastle to Morpeth/Chathill, there may be others though? Sorry if OT, I thought about this when I saw the 322’s parked up at Heaton and this thread just reminded me....

 

[Mikey C]

In defence of "alternative" fuels, even if we decide the electrify every line, it'll take a long time (20 years?) to do so, so hydrogen trains in the meantime might be a useful interim solution for certain lines. Any Class 319 derivative will have a limited shelf life, they're not going to last more than 15/20 years anyway

 

[DustyBin]

I’ve not been able to find a definitive figure/statistic following a brief search, but it certainly appears that the railway is already a very low emitter. I get that further reductions can be made which is great, but is it really necessary to rid the network of diesel powered trains?

 

[norbitonflyer]

Northern are running DMU’s on a fully electrified route,I’m talking about Newcastle to Morpeth/Chathill, there may be others though?

Most Northern services to Morpeth work through from the Tyne Valley line, which is not electrified.

As for whether Inverness is worth wiring, Network Rail's recently published Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy shows wiring to Inverness (and a little beyond, as far as the Dornoch Firth) as part of the proposed "core" electrified network (p 79). This puts it ahead of places like Plymouth and Sunderland, which are only shown as "ancillary".

 

[Kingspanner]

It absolutely is necessary to rid the network of as many emissions as possible. Having an impact on climate change isn't about everybody doing a little bit. Everyone has to do a lot, and relatively quick wins are welcome.

 

[DustyBin]

Most Northern services to Morpeth work through from the Tyne Valley line, which is not electrified.

As for whether Inverness is worth wiring, Network Rail's recently published Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy shows wiring to Inverness (and a little beyond, as far as the Dornoch Firth) as part of the proposed "core" electrified network (p 79). This puts it ahead of places like Plymouth and Sunderland, which are only shown as "ancillary".

You're right actually, certainly at present most services start at Carlisle. I thought there were more services that only ran along the ECML but maybe not....

 

[Philip Phlopp]

It absolutely is necessary to rid the network of as many emissions as possible. Having an impact on climate change isn't about everybody doing a little bit. Everyone has to do a lot, and relatively quick wins are welcome.

CO2 is less of an issue when it comes to hydrogen trains, since there's a good chance much of the hydrogen will be surplus hydrogen from industrial processes which is only really low carbon by fudging the emissions numbers. The real win with hydrogen however is removing nitrogen oxides and particulate matter from built-up residential areas (it is for this reason the trials haven't gone down the route of using hydrogen internal combustion engines, which would be an easy like-for-like replacement on most DMUs - they still generate NOx emissions at the exhaust).

 

[Mordac]

It absolutely is necessary to rid the network of as many emissions as possible. Having an impact on climate change isn't about everybody doing a little bit. Everyone has to do a lot, and relatively quick wins are welcome.

The marginal effect of the UK eliminating all its CO2 emissions from diesel trains, even if it happened tomorrow, is about nil. People really need to get some perspective about the size of this country and more importantly, some notion of cost effectiveness.

 

[matacaster]

Not alone, but possibly misplaced. Much better to be in a crash with hydrogen fuel (lighter than air) than diesel (heavier).

Passengers in Hindenburg may just possibly disagree.

 

[Bald Rick]

Passengers in Hindenburg may just possibly disagree.

Have a look upthread.

 

[BayPaul]

Because travelling is just another activity in the smorgasbord of life. And life is measured in time.

If I spend an hour walking at 6kph around the rim of an active volcano, and another hour cycling around it at 24kph, my risk of not making it out alive is exactly the same at the end of the hour. Measure by distance, though, and the bike is 4 times safer.

I would say that these are leisure activities, not transport, and so should be risk assessed by hour as you suggest. If your commute took you 6km along the edge of an active volcano (i.e. you need to go the same distance, not going around and around it for the same time), then cycling is indeed 4 times safer, as you will only be next to the rim for 15 minutes, rather than 60 when walking. In a similar way, the environmental impact of a cruise should be measured by passenger day (i.e. the same as a hotel), whilst a ferry should be measured by passenger km, as one is a leisure activity where travelling a distance is incidental to that activity, whilst the other is transport.

The marginal effect of the UK eliminating all its CO2 emissions from diesel trains, even if it happened tomorrow, is about nil. People really need to get some perspective about the size of this country and more importantly, some notion of cost effectiveness.

Is there also a marketing / PR angle? If cars are becoming electric, it becomes very difficult to encourage people to shift to a diesel train as an environmentally friendly alternative. De-carbonising trains is a lot easier than de-carbonising most other things in this country. If we can't even afford to reduce the footprint of a train, the world really doesn't have a hope.

 

[birchesgreen]

The marginal effect of the UK eliminating all its CO2 emissions from diesel trains, even if it happened tomorrow, is about nil. People really need to get some perspective about the size of this country and more importantly, some notion of cost effectiveness.

Road transport will be moving to electric greatly over the next couple of decades. It would look a bit odd (in say 2040) to have fleets of electric trucks bringing containers to be loaded on a train hauled by a Class 66. Rail can't sit still.

 

[mwmbwls]

"the ambition for Tees Valley to become a trailblazing Hydrogen Transport Hub". I think Informed sources 10th law applies here

INFORMED SOURCES LAWS

Tenth Law ‘If something has to be claimed as declared “world-beating” ( trailblazing) it almost certainly isn’t’

CO2 is less of an issue when it comes to hydrogen trains, since there's a good chance much of the hydrogen will be surplus hydrogen from industrial processes which is only really low carbon by fudging the emissions numbers. The real win with hydrogen however is removing nitrogen oxides and particulate matter from built-up residential areas (it is for this reason the trials haven't gone down the route of using hydrogen internal combustion engines, which would be an easy like-for-like replacement on most DMUs - they still generate NOx emissions at the exhaust).

Ineos produce hydrogen as a by-product of their vinyl-chlor production process. Hence the reference to Tees-side.

 

[edwin_m]

CO2 is less of an issue when it comes to hydrogen trains, since there's a good chance much of the hydrogen will be surplus hydrogen from industrial processes which is only really low carbon by fudging the emissions numbers. The real win with hydrogen however is removing nitrogen oxides and particulate matter from built-up residential areas (it is for this reason the trials haven't gone down the route of using hydrogen internal combustion engines, which would be an easy like-for-like replacement on most DMUs - they still generate NOx emissions at the exhaust).

Ineos produce hydrogen as a by-product of their vinyl-chlor production process. Hence the reference to Tees-side.

There are some issues with using by-product hydrogen, such as:

• Could the hydrogen be used in some way that reduces net CO2 emissions more, such as electrifying the railway and using the hydrogen in district heating, or just using the hydrogen to power a generator? Obviously it doesn't happen now, but neither does use in trains, and all options must be considered when deciding how best to use the resource.
• How long will the process that generates the by-product continue? If it uses oil as a feedstock then it may itself fall victim to decarbonization at some stage, perhaps while the trains still have some of their 30+ year lifespan remaining. It may be that replacement with hydrogen from electrolysis will be economically viable by then, or the trains would have a useful role if converted to pure EMUs. Then again it may not...

 

[mwmbwls]

There are some issues with using by-product hydrogen, such as:

• Could the hydrogen be used in some way that reduces net CO2 emissions more, such as electrifying the railway and using the hydrogen in district heating, or just using the hydrogen to power a generator? Obviously it doesn't happen now, but neither does use in trains, and all options must be considered when deciding how best to use the resource.
• How long will the process that generates the by-product continue? If it uses oil as a feedstock then it may itself fall victim to decarbonization at some stage, perhaps while the trains still have some of their 30+ year lifespan remaining. It may be that replacement with hydrogen from electrolysis will be economically viable by then, or the trains would have a useful role if converted to pure EMUs. Then again it may not...

Unless we move away from PVC window and door frames - I think the process will be around for some time.

 

[BRX]

The marginal effect of the UK eliminating all its CO2 emissions from diesel trains, even if it happened tomorrow, is about nil. People really need to get some perspective about the size of this country and more importantly, some notion of cost effectiveness.

You can subdivide all of our CO2 emissions into subsets. Buses. Private cars. Hire cars. Red cars, blue cars, double decker buses, heating in homes on the Isle of Wight, heating in golf clubs. And then for each of those you can claim "well this is such a small portion of the overall sum, changing it would only have a marginal effect". And then none of them changes.

That's why this argument doesn't really stack up. Unless, relative to most of the other things, the cost or difficulty of changing one particular sector is really disproportionately high.

 

[BayPaul]

There are some issues with using by-product hydrogen, such as:

• Could the hydrogen be used in some way that reduces net CO2 emissions more, such as electrifying the railway and using the hydrogen in district heating, or just using the hydrogen to power a generator? Obviously it doesn't happen now, but neither does use in trains, and all options must be considered when deciding how best to use the resource.

I agree with this one completely. For example Airbus are talking about a hydrogen-fueled plane. It seems a bit unlikely, but aerospace is an industry that is very difficult to reduce to zero-carbon. If low carbon hydrogen is a way to do it, and it is in short supply, then it seems a waste for the rail industry to take it, which has other options.

 

[Kingspanner]

Hydrogen can be made at scale either by Steam Methane Reforming (but this produces carbon dioxide so you would need carbon capture and storage) or by electrolysis from water. Before all the squealing starts about energy efficiency, that argument is moot if the energy you use for the electrolysis is virtually free in the first place, which it can be if you have an excess of renewable generation capacity.
Ask the Institution of Mechanical Engineers https://www.power-technology.com/fe...urplus-solar-wind-power-good-source-hydrogen/
"The Institution of Mechanical Engineers is advocating for surplus renewable energy to be diverted to hydrogen fuel cells in order to boost the hydrogen fuel market, and balance supply and demand".

 

[Harpers Tate]

Another issue is that hydrogen's production process is very 'un-green' - it requires fossil fuels to produce it. It may be cleaner at point of use but is still very polluting in the round.

It does not require fossil fuel. It may be used in some cases - but it is not a requirement. I say again - at my local Hydrogen filling station the entire process is driven by an on-site windmill.

 

[102 fan]

Have a look upthread.

Are you seriously trying to say the hydrogen WASN'T a factor?

 

[43096]

Are you seriously trying to say the hydrogen WASN'T a factor?

And if it wasn’t a factor, why is helium used instead?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Are you seriously trying to say the hydrogen WASN'T a factor?

It would have crashed even if it had been filled with helium. The skin caught fire, as soon as you lose the skin and gas containment is lost, gravity is taking over and the only way you're going is earthward.

 

[Mordac]

You can subdivide all of our CO2 emissions into subsets. Buses. Private cars. Hire cars. Red cars, blue cars, double decker buses, heating in homes on the Isle of Wight, heating in golf clubs. And then for each of those you can claim "well this is such a small portion of the overall sum, changing it would only have a marginal effect". And then none of them changes.

That's why this argument doesn't really stack up. Unless, relative to most of the other things, the cost or difficulty of changing one particular sector is really disproportionately high.

That's why you start with where the marginal cost of reducing it is lower. Which isn't on rural branch lines.

 

[BRX]

That's why you start with where the marginal cost of reducing it is lower. Which isn't on rural branch lines.

Diesel trains aren't limited to rural branch lines though.

 

[BayPaul]

Are you seriously trying to say the hydrogen WASN'T a factor?

Lots of things (everything) has a risk. But using the Hindenburg as an arguement for not using hydrogen as a fuel seems similar to saying that you are not going to go skiing because the Titanic hit an iceberg. Not completely irrelevant, but not exactly relevant either. We are all comfortable using vehicles powered by combustible substances. The fact that one vehicle caught fire a century ago, that was using a substance in a completely different way shouldn't really impact us any more than the horrendous fire that occured when the ferry Moby Prince hit an oil tanker doesn't stop us going on an HST.

 

[broadgage]

Annoyingly, I reckon some of those lightly used, longer branch lines would be more cheaply served with full electrification. I think there's an unfortunate but understandable tendency to budget electrifying some branch lines with conventional UK Master Series catenary, when a more bespoke, lower cost electrification system might be best utilised.

I agree, and if electrification is not viable, battery power is IMHO a more sensible option than hydrogen.

 

[Jim Jehosofat]

It's still a hugely inefficient process that needs lots of energy to produce - hardly something to aspire to. Further, you need almost three coaches of train for two with passengers in - again a waste in terms of use of resources.

Get the wires up!


The railway is a transport system, not a fairground ride! We should de-carbonise it in the most efficient way possible.

A bit like a 755 then, 3 or 4 passenger coaches and that little wagon thing in the middle.