• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Video: Could electric roads spark a green transport revolution?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,640

Given the discussions on OHLE etc here it seems topical as a way of slashing emissions from HGVs.

But OHLE on a road?


(Might be wrong sub forum but infra seemed the best option?)

Trolleybuses have existed for years. This seems a reasonable evolution of that technology. It would be higher speed than the average trolleybus, but railway OHLE copes with much higher speed. Being freight rather than passenger is relatively unimportant. You need a battery to cope with non-electrified roads, but that's pretty well sorted as a technology now.

I imagine the biggest obstacle will be how much disruption would it cause to string up wires on major highways, (will you need to alter bridges for improved clearances like on the railway), and if you can get anyone to take the plunge to buy a fleet of electric lorries for long distance work before there was a complete network to run them on..
 

corfield

Member
Joined
17 Feb 2012
Messages
383
My major concern is it will give DafT etc another excuse not to electrify the railways and god forbid more ammo for the "We don't need HS2 now" brigade.
Never do or not do anything out of fear - worst possible motivation.

This seems a good “and” option given HGV to rail is unlikely in our small island and the costs of mode change vs advantages of point to point.

The installation and maintenance of this seem the killers for this idea. Plus it would have to be very discontinuous or else we have all sorts of liability issues near 100s of bridges akd embankments and so on, not to mention junctions allowing odd sized loads to be able to get on/off (and presumably use other lanes).

I also wonder at the H&S of cab drivers only a few feet below the panto and the much greater (vs usual road vehicle) inspections and maintenance required?
 

3141

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2012
Messages
1,771
Location
Whitchurch, Hampshire

Given the discussions on OHLE etc here it seems topical as a way of slashing emissions from HGVs.

But OHLE on a road?


(Might be wrong sub forum but infra seemed the best option?)

"The plan for a so-called electric road system would cost £19.3bn" and the three construction phases would require 7.1 years. It says there....
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
Whilst it's likely to help with carbon emissions, the better thing to do would be to increase rail capacity, the other day The Telegraph was citing a leeked report that said to decarbonise the rail network would cost £30bn. For that rather than +60% of lorry travel there would be 85% of route miles electrified, which is probably +95% of all rail travel by EMU with the remaining covered by hydrogen or battery trains.

Electrification would likely lead to increased capacity from the use of longer trains.

Electrification of the road network would add to the maintenance required to be undertaken (given we've got maximum weight limits adding the extra weight of batteries for off grid running would mean more lorries and heavier empty lorries). This is important as the Strategic Road Network (4,800 miles) already produces more emissions (min. 330,000 tonnes in the last 5 years, with a total of 2,100,000 tonnes in that 5 year period) than the railways (9,800 miles) does (maximum of 300,000 in the last 5 years with 250,000 last year).

Conversely electrification of the rail network would reduce maintenance.

Whilst it would significantly reduce our emissions, it's likely to only work if Europe also have it. That's a significant investment from a lot of places before a lot of our lorries could convert.

Yes it would help distribution for the likes of Sainsbury's, goods from overseas would be dependent on other countries having the same network.

I'd also question how much is viable given that there's a long way from Exeter/Plymouth to parts of Cornwall. That's likely to need either significant batteries and/or long charging breaks. Whilst it should be possible to charge enough whilst loading/unloading that's going to require significant investment in power supply to stores (which works for supermarkets but not so much for smaller shops).

As such chances are there'd still be a need for some diesel lorries. I suspect that you'd end up with a logistics company offering to swap to their drivers and tractor units for the last 100 mile travel. With many doing so add it would be cheaper than many of the other options. However it would still add cost and maybe delay (although does shorten the hours for your own drivers so could remove the need for goods to stop for a driver's rest, as they could carry on and a return leg trailer could arrive part way through the drivers break so that their time was better spent).

However adding 10% more lorries to the road network (about 3 tonnes of a 30 tonnes load being required for batteries) and it's going to cause more road congestion and require more lorry drivers.

Conversely rail freight reduces both of these needs and is more environmentally friendly.
 

corfield

Member
Joined
17 Feb 2012
Messages
383
Whilst it's likely to help with carbon emissions, the better thing to do would be to increase rail capacity, the other day The Telegraph was citing a leeked report that said to decarbonise the rail network would cost £30bn. For that rather than +60% of lorry travel there would be 85% of route miles electrified, which is probably +95% of all rail travel by EMU with the remaining covered by hydrogen or battery trains.

Electrification would likely lead to increased capacity from the use of longer trains.

Electrification of the road network would add to the maintenance required to be undertaken (given we've got maximum weight limits adding the extra weight of batteries for off grid running would mean more lorries and heavier empty lorries). This is important as the Strategic Road Network (4,800 miles) already produces more emissions (min. 330,000 tonnes in the last 5 years, with a total of 2,100,000 tonnes in that 5 year period) than the railways (9,800 miles) does (maximum of 300,000 in the last 5 years with 250,000 last year).

Conversely electrification of the rail network would reduce maintenance.

Whilst it would significantly reduce our emissions, it's likely to only work if Europe also have it. That's a significant investment from a lot of places before a lot of our lorries could convert.

Yes it would help distribution for the likes of Sainsbury's, goods from overseas would be dependent on other countries having the same network.

I'd also question how much is viable given that there's a long way from Exeter/Plymouth to parts of Cornwall. That's likely to need either significant batteries and/or long charging breaks. Whilst it should be possible to charge enough whilst loading/unloading that's going to require significant investment in power supply to stores (which works for supermarkets but not so much for smaller shops).

As such chances are there'd still be a need for some diesel lorries. I suspect that you'd end up with a logistics company offering to swap to their drivers and tractor units for the last 100 mile travel. With many doing so add it would be cheaper than many of the other options. However it would still add cost and maybe delay (although does shorten the hours for your own drivers so could remove the need for goods to stop for a driver's rest, as they could carry on and a return leg trailer could arrive part way through the drivers break so that their time was better spent).

However adding 10% more lorries to the road network (about 3 tonnes of a 30 tonnes load being required for batteries) and it's going to cause more road congestion and require more lorry drivers.

Conversely rail freight reduces both of these needs and is more environmentally friendly.
Were you representing rail at Jim Hacker’s “Transport Supremo” meeting?

You want to spend 50% more on electrifying rail, rather than hit what as your own stats show - is a more polluting part?

Why not do something about road, against which rail traffic is tiny, for less money. Between private EVs and something say like this for HGVs, less money delivers more benefits... it is also targetting the very heaviest flows, rather than as with rail, ever more diminishing returns.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
Probably be lower voltage - 750-1500 - but if DC would surely give too many corrosion issues?

Why would there be corrosion issues?
The traction current remains contained to the conductors at all times, it isn't being spread through the ground like in a rail situation.

Whilst it's likely to help with carbon emissions, the better thing to do would be to increase rail capacity, the other day The Telegraph was citing a leeked report that said to decarbonise the rail network would cost £30bn. For that rather than +60% of lorry travel there would be 85% of route miles electrified, which is probably +95% of all rail travel by EMU with the remaining covered by hydrogen or battery trains.

But rail travel is a rounding error on fuel consumption.
Its an irrelevance on a national scale.

This project achieves a fuel reduction dramatically greater than anything you can possibly achieve with rail electrificaiton.

Whilst it would significantly reduce our emissions, it's likely to only work if Europe also have it. That's a significant investment from a lot of places before a lot of our lorries could convert.

Electrodiesel lorries seem to be the obvious solution here?
We don't need perfect electrification - diesle operation on other parts of the road network is still entirely acceptable and we still reduce consumption of fuel dramatically.

Or you could add a few hundred extra kilometres to this project and remove most of the remaining longest non-electrified journeys.
My own proposals for such a thing mostly focus on the SRN for this reason.

Conversely rail freight reduces both of these needs and is more environmentally friendly.

How much money do you need to increase rail's market share by five times? All electric as well.
That's about the fuel conusmption saving we are talking here.
 
Last edited:

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,806
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
Why would there be corrosion issues?
The traction current remains contained to the conductors at all times, it isn't being spread through the ground like in a rail situation.

In theory you are correct. In practice in all my life and studies, whenever DC is used there can be problems. Even in ICCP as opposed to SACP where everything is insulated I have seen problems. On the Manchester tram network there was the odd problem iirc
ICCP = Impressed Current Cathodic Protection
SACP = Sacrificial Anode Cathodic Protection
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
In practice in all my life and studies, whenever DC is used there can be problems.
That's why they say that electricity "tends to follow" or "prefers" the path of least resistance. Some electrons are stubborn and make their own path.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,531
I saw the picture of two pantograph heads on top of a lorry posted above - how, without guide rails, would the lorry manage not to have a dewiring incident assuming the panotgraphs are spring loaded. Aren't trolley booms a more likely solution than pantographs?

Presumably at junctions the OHLE would stop and the truck would use batteries to access the next bit of OHLE.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
How much money do you need to increase rail's market share by five times? All electric as well.
That's about the fuel conusmption saving we are talking here.

Rail freight is already 6 times lower than road freight, with more electric traction than it would be lower still if more if more than about 10% was electric traction.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
Rail freight is already 6 times lower than road freight, with more electric traction than it would be lower still if more if more than about 10% was electric traction.

In order to achieve the same total fuel saving as the programme proposed here using rail, you would have to cut rail fuel use entirely, then expand railfreight to several times its current levels.

I saw the picture of two pantograph heads on top of a lorry posted above - how, without guide rails, would the lorry manage not to have a dewiring incident assuming the panotgraphs are spring loaded. Aren't trolley booms a more likely solution than pantographs?

Presumably at junctions the OHLE would stop and the truck would use batteries to access the next bit of OHLE.

The pantographs are not spring loaded, they are actively controlled by computers tracking the wire.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
In order to achieve the same total fuel saving as the programme proposed here using rail, you would have to cut rail fuel use entirely, then expand railfreight to several times its current levels.

The problem is that you're comparing 2020 values.

In that other measures could reduce the current emissions without the need for such a large capital spend.

Therefore in partnership with reducing emissions from rail and some increase in rail use then chances are you'd be able to get close to that level anyway.

For instance cars see a 1/3 of current emissions when converted to EV, with more as to grid greens.

If there was a (say) a drop to 50% by using plug in Hybrids then the drop to the OHLE system for roads would only be a drop of 2.5 whilst rail would still be 3 with a 90% diesel use of diesel locomotives.

That would mean that the benefits from this system would be much lower and the amount of switch to rail would need to be lower.

Also it's worth noting that due to road vehicles being less efficient there's a need for more electricity, which in turn means it's going to take longer to get to 100% green energy generation meaning that the fall in emissions from switching to electric wouldn't be as big as would otherwise be the case.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
For instance cars see a 1/3 of current emissions when converted to EV, with more as to grid greens.

There aren't really other electrification options for lorries in the timescales we are talking about though.
 

hst43102

Member
Joined
28 May 2019
Messages
945
Location
Tyneside
Good idea! But why OHL - surely a "third rail" located under the crash barrier at the side of the carriageway would be easier to install and maintain, with shoes to transmit the electricity rather than a pantograph?
 

corfield

Member
Joined
17 Feb 2012
Messages
383
o
Good idea! But why OHL - surely a "third rail" located under the crash barrier at the side of the carriageway would be easier to install and maintain, with shoes to transmit the electricity rather than a pantograph?
And much safer too!
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
Good idea! But why OHL - surely a "third rail" located under the crash barrier at the side of the carriageway would be easier to install and maintain, with shoes to transmit the electricity rather than a pantograph?
And much safer too!
You run into the same issues as you do with third-rail railway electrification: higher capital costs due to needing more supply points (assuming that the OHLE is running at a higher voltage than the ground-level supply, increased risk of accidental contact with the rail (someone breaks down and pulls onto the hard shoulder and gets out of the vehicle as you're supposed to), plus talking of hard shoulders does that mean they are converted to e-truck lanes?
 

hst43102

Member
Joined
28 May 2019
Messages
945
Location
Tyneside
You run into the same issues as you do with third-rail railway electrification: higher capital costs due to needing more supply points (assuming that the OHLE is running at a higher voltage than the ground-level supply, increased risk of accidental contact with the rail (someone breaks down and pulls onto the hard shoulder and gets out of the vehicle as you're supposed to), plus talking of hard shoulders does that mean they are converted to e-truck lanes?
On "Smart Motorways" hard shoulders are usually treated as a fourth lane of the motorway - as this is the lowest lane, it's commonly used by trucks. Converting them into e-truck lanes would be cheaper, easier and possibly even safer than OHL.
 

Furrball

Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
561
The government will fund the design of a scheme to install overhead electric cables to power electric lorries on a motorway near Scunthorpe, as part of a series of studies on how to decarbonise road freight.


The electric road system – or e-highway – study, backed with £2m of funding, will draw up plans to install overhead cables on a 20km (12.4 miles) stretch of the M180 near Scunthorpe, in Lincolnshire. If the designs are accepted and building work is funded the trucks could be on the road by 2024.


Road freight is one of the hardest parts of the economy to decarbonise, because no technology exists yet on a large scale that is capable of powering long-haul lorries with zero direct exhaust emissions.


New diesel and petrol lorries will be banned in Britain by 2040 as part of plans to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2050. That has given lorry companies little time to develop and commercialise technology that will be crucial to the functioning of the economy. While cars can rely on lithium ion batteries, the weight of a battery required to power a fully laden truck over long distances has prompted trucking companies to look for alternatives.


The e-highway study is one of several options that will be funded, along with a study of hydrogen fuel cell trucks and battery electric lorries, the Department for Transport said on Tuesday.


On the e-highway, lorries fitted with rigs called pantographs – similar to those used by trains and trams – would be able to tap into the electricity supply to power electric motors. Lorries would also have a smaller battery to power them over the first and last legs of the journey off the motorway.


The project is led by Costain, an infrastructure construction company that also operates some UK motorways, using trucks built by Sweden’s Scania and electric technology from Germany’s Siemens that is already in use in smaller-scale trials there, Sweden and the US.


Also involved are academics from the Centre for Sustainable Road Freight, a joint project between Cambridge and Heriot-Watt universities, which previously found that that an electric roads system could put all but the most remote parts of the UK within reach of the trucks by the late 2030s, at a cost of £19bn. The white paper, published last year, suggested that the plan would pay for itself within 15 years through charges on electricity.


However, the consortium’s efforts to secure government backing will probably face stiff opposition, not least from other projects. The industry is split between advocates for lithium ion batteries and hydrogen fuel cells, as well as e-highways.


Lorry manufacturer Leyland Trucks, owned by America’s Paccar, will receive funding to trial 20 DAF battery-electric trucks with the NHS and other government bodies.


Another will see London-headquartered Arcola Energy design a trial of hydrogen fuel cell trucks and new refuelling infrastructure in Scotland. Hydrogen fuel cells produce only water as a byproduct, although their green credentials are reliant on producing the gas using renewable energy sources.

 

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
15,686
Location
Devon
This idea apparently refuses to die, and our government has never met a bad idea that it could ignore:
The Guardian: UK government backs scheme for motorway cables to power lorries.

I’m just sent the above post this way (probably powered by overhead cables)…
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
The government will fund the design of a scheme to install overhead electric cables to power electric lorries on a motorway near Scunthorpe, as part of a series of studies on how to decarbonise road freight.


The electric road system – or e-highway – study, backed with £2m of funding, will draw up plans to install overhead cables on a 20km (12.4 miles) stretch of the M180 near Scunthorpe, in Lincolnshire. If the designs are accepted and building work is funded the trucks could be on the road by 2024.


Road freight is one of the hardest parts of the economy to decarbonise, because no technology exists yet on a large scale that is capable of powering long-haul lorries with zero direct exhaust emissions.


New diesel and petrol lorries will be banned in Britain by 2040 as part of plans to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2050. That has given lorry companies little time to develop and commercialise technology that will be crucial to the functioning of the economy. While cars can rely on lithium ion batteries, the weight of a battery required to power a fully laden truck over long distances has prompted trucking companies to look for alternatives.


The e-highway study is one of several options that will be funded, along with a study of hydrogen fuel cell trucks and battery electric lorries, the Department for Transport said on Tuesday.


On the e-highway, lorries fitted with rigs called pantographs – similar to those used by trains and trams – would be able to tap into the electricity supply to power electric motors. Lorries would also have a smaller battery to power them over the first and last legs of the journey off the motorway.


The project is led by Costain, an infrastructure construction company that also operates some UK motorways, using trucks built by Sweden’s Scania and electric technology from Germany’s Siemens that is already in use in smaller-scale trials there, Sweden and the US.


Also involved are academics from the Centre for Sustainable Road Freight, a joint project between Cambridge and Heriot-Watt universities, which previously found that that an electric roads system could put all but the most remote parts of the UK within reach of the trucks by the late 2030s, at a cost of £19bn. The white paper, published last year, suggested that the plan would pay for itself within 15 years through charges on electricity.


However, the consortium’s efforts to secure government backing will probably face stiff opposition, not least from other projects. The industry is split between advocates for lithium ion batteries and hydrogen fuel cells, as well as e-highways.


Lorry manufacturer Leyland Trucks, owned by America’s Paccar, will receive funding to trial 20 DAF battery-electric trucks with the NHS and other government bodies.


Another will see London-headquartered Arcola Energy design a trial of hydrogen fuel cell trucks and new refuelling infrastructure in Scotland. Hydrogen fuel cells produce only water as a byproduct, although their green credentials are reliant on producing the gas using renewable energy sources.


£19bn, presumably for most of the Strategic Road Network (4,500 miles), how would that compare to doing the rest of the railway network (9,800 miles)?
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
£19bn, presumably for most of the Strategic Road Network (4,500 miles), how would that compare to doing the rest of the railway network (9,800 miles)?
I would treat estimates for wiring the road network for HGVs (which has never been done in this country) with a very high degree of scepticism.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
I would treat estimates for wiring the road network for HGVs (which has never been done in this country) with a very high degree of scepticism.
Never mind this country, has it been done on a wide-scale basis anywhere yet?
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
I would treat estimates for wiring the road network for HGVs (which has never been done in this country) with a very high degree of scepticism.

Indeed, I suspect that it's likely to be said to cost £19bn and then creep upwards (creep, like am F1 car if I'm totally honest).
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
Creep like HS2?

No, faster and probably for less good reasons (at least some of the HS2 cost increases are due to things like adding rolling stock costs or the extra tunneling).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top