Hydroflex - testing

[norbitonflyer]

Another issue is that hydrogen's production process is very 'un-green' - it requires fossil fuels to produce it.

Any source of electricity will do to make hydrogen and, unlike a straight electric but like a battery it can be generated any time, using surplus off-peak generating capacity, with thge energy stored (as hydrogen) for use later.

Orkney generates more electricity from the wind and waves (of which it has a super-abundance) than it can use, and uses the extra to make hydrogen.

 

[43096]

Not if it is produced by electrolysis, and that electricity is from renewable sources.

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!

Also from a personal point of view would rather see the HML with hydrogen powered trains than spoil the beauty with OLE.

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

 

[Darandio]

Why do some on here try to say that it wasn't hydrogen gas that was the cause of the Hindenburg fire?

Well it was a spark that caused it, wasn't it?

 

[Journeyman]

Not impressed by the miserable, negative comments here. It's a big step forward, and as such it deserves some praise. Yes, there may be issues with this initially, but I'm sure the 50mph thing isn't a hard limit, and converting existing rolling stock is always going to present issues that won't be present if building new.

 

[Mikey C]

Another converted 319

In 20 years time I look forward to another 319 being used to demonstrate a Nuclear Fusion powered train

 

[ABB125]

As air disasters go, the survival rate of the Hindenburg crash was fairly good at 64% (23/36 passengers, 39/61 crew).

To me, 61 crew seems absolutely extraordinary - what did they all do? Make cocktails at the on-board bar?

 

[Bald Rick]

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.

It’s not that inefficient. About 70-80% to produce the Hydrogen. And if it’s from renewables that would be otherwise unused (as is increasingly the case on these isles), then it’s ‘free’. Sort of.

Nevertheless, batteries will be better for most applications.

 

[spark001uk]

Did I hear the BBC reporter right? It takes most of a day to fill the tanks?
Really??

 

[Bevan Price]

Hydrogen needs to be handled very carefully. See the data sheet here, for example:

https://www.airgas.com/msds/001026.pdf

And note the bit about storing containers away from direct sunlight, so cylinders on a train roof is a bad idea. Also note the hydrogen/air explosive mixture limits. To me, hydrogen can be potentially used safely - provided nobody involved with use / maintenance gets a little careless. Badly fitted control valves, and worn/leaking connecting pipes are potential problems. Hydrogen gas molecules are very small (compared with oxygen/nitrogen) and can easily "escape" through even minor defects in the supply system.

 

[ABB125]

Another converted 319

In 20 years time I look forward to another 319 being used to demonstrate a Nuclear Fusion powered train

Me too.
And the one running on bionic duckweed...

 

[Bald Rick]

To me, 61 crew seems absolutely extraordinary - what did they all do? Make cocktails at the on-board bar?

Amongst other things, yes!

 

[ABB125]

Amongst other things, yes!

Must have been a rather expensive form of transport!
On the subject of safety, I'm told that space rockets are the safest mode of transport on a casualties-per-mile basis. They happen to be filled with very flammable fuels, and rather more of it than a hydrogen train.

 

[Journeyman]

Must have been a rather expensive form of transport!
On the subject of safety, I'm told that space rockets are the safest mode of transport on a casualties-per-mile basis. They happen to be filled with very flammable fuels, and rather more of it than a hydrogen train.

Probably only because of the vast distances involved. The Space Shuttle seemed terrifyingly lethal - two out of five lost, with 100% casualties each time.

 

[Bald Rick]

Must have been a rather expensive form of transport!
On the subject of safety, I'm told that space rockets are the safest mode of transport on a casualties-per-mile basis. They happen to be filled with very flammable fuels, and rather more of it than a hydrogen train.

Yep, about £7k one way in today’s cash.

Re space rockets, I always think casualties per mile is a poor measure of transport safety.

It should be casualties per hour of travelling.

 

[Meerkat]

Yep, about £7k one way in today’s cash.

Re space rockets, I always think casualties per mile is a poor measure of transport safety.

It should be casualties per hour of travelling.

Why? A journey is X miles.
Whilst Hydrogen escapes upwards etc, this assumes it doesn’t escape inside the train

 

[OVS Flatbottom]

To me, 61 crew seems absolutely extraordinary - what did they all do? Make cocktails at the on-board bar?

"Only" forty of them were the regular crew (remember that 1930s rigid airships needed, among other things, an engineer to work each individual engine, and most of the crew stood watches, as on a ship, so there were typically three people for each position). The others were on board for training or as observers. See https://www.airships.net/hindenburg/disaster/crew-list/ and https://www.airships.net/hindenburg/flight-operations-procedures/#crew.

 

[Energy]

Why do some on here try to say that it wasn't hydrogen gas that was the cause of the Hindenburg fire? Is it because hydrogen is considered green and therefore immune from any criticism?

No, its because the skin of the Hindenburg was made of the same ingredients as thermite, which burns at very high temperatures, these ingredients were only separated by a thin sheet. Mythbusters (American TV show) looked into this and decided that it was a mixture of the skin and the hydrogen, the Hindenburg didn't burn like hydrogen does.

 

[ABB125]

Must have been a rather expensive form of transport!
On the subject of safety, I'm told that space rockets are the safest mode of transport on a casualties-per-mile basis. They happen to be filled with very flammable fuels, and rather more of it than a hydrogen train.

Probably only because of the vast distances involved. The Space Shuttle seemed terrifyingly lethal - two out of five lost, with 100% casualties each time.

Yep, about £7k one way in today’s cash.

Re space rockets, I always think casualties per mile is a poor measure of transport safety.

It should be casualties per hour of travelling.

As they say, there's lies, damn lies and statistics! You can prove anything with statistics, including opposing arguments with the same data...

"Only" forty of them were the regular crew (remember that 1930s rigid airships needed, among other things, an engineer to work each individual engine, and most of the crew stood watches, as on a ship, so there were typically three people for each position). The others were on board for training or as observers. See https://www.airships.net/hindenburg/disaster/crew-list/ and https://www.airships.net/hindenburg/flight-operations-procedures/#crew.

Thanks, that's very interesting.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

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.

EXACTLY my thoughts too. Hugely inefficient.

 

[Requeststop]

How much heat energy is expelled into the atmosphere per unit burned compared to say methane, gasoline, diesel, or heat energy expelled from an electric engine? It's not just about CO2 emissions.

 

[edwin_m]

How much heat energy is expelled into the atmosphere per unit burned compared to say methane, gasoline, diesel, or heat energy expelled from an electric engine? It's not just about CO2 emissions.

If the electricity to produce the hydrogen was generated from renewables then it would otherwise have been warming the earth by exactly the same amount, either by solar radiation or by friction between the wind and other objects. So there's no net extra production of heat, unlike fossil fuels. But I've never heard anyone saying the heat is the problem, as a slightly warmer planet just radiates that bit more into space (if the CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't stop it).

 

[Philip Phlopp]

How much heat energy is expelled into the atmosphere per unit burned compared to say methane, gasoline, diesel, or heat energy expelled from an electric engine? It's not just about CO2 emissions.

I don't think there's much heat energy - the fuel isn't burned as such, it's reacted in a controlled manner to generate water and electricity in a fuel cell, I don't think they even get as hot as a normal diesel engine - the water certainly comes out at room temperature.

 

[city dweller]

Is it just me, or does that picture look like Grant Shapps has been photoshopped in?

There is a clip here

 

[Bald Rick]

Why? A journey is X miles.

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.

 

[Meerkat]

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.

That would make sense if travel was a leisure activity in itself, but it is a way of covering a distance - so the valid comparison is what is the safest way of getting from a-b.
Otherwise it might be safer to run across the rail tracks than to walk over the footbridge.

 

[Northhighland]

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.

Wrong on both counts. One of the issues with renewables is what to use the energy produced at night. Perfect for making hydrogen for use in transport. If hydrogen is produced using water and electricity it is a truly sustainable environmentally friendly fuel.

As to the Railway and decarbonisation I would agree doing it in the most efficient way. At present it isn’t economically viable to electrify to Inverness. Doubt it will any time soon.
Hydrogen technology is still being developed. It will improve and has huge potential. I feel you are one of Henry Fords faster horses type.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

At present it isn’t economically viable to electrify to Inverness.

I can't be arsed.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I can't be arsed.

Frustrating isn’t i?

 

[philthetube]

I'd take diesel over hydrogen any day. Remember Hindenburg?

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.

To me, 61 crew seems absolutely extraordinary - what did they all do? Make cocktails at the on-board bar?

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

 

[43096]

Wrong on both counts.

Posting opinions as facts - which is what you have done - doesn’t make me definitively wrong.

I feel you are one of Henry Fords faster horses type.

I feel you haven’t a clue as to what I think. Electrification is the answer wherever possible as it is fuel source independent: as long as we can generate electricity from whatever source, an electric railway can operate. As for Inverness, if the Germans can make a case for Munich-Lindau wiring, north of Perth ought to be justifiable.