Macwomble
Member
Just checked....it isn't April 1st.
'E-highways' could slash UK road freight emissions, says study
System of overhead cables and adapted lorries could pay for itself within 15 yearswww.theguardian.com
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?)
Never do or not do anything out of fear - worst possible motivation.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.
'E-highways' could slash UK road freight emissions, says study
System of overhead cables and adapted lorries could pay for itself within 15 yearswww.theguardian.com
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?)
Were you representing rail at Jim Hacker’s “Transport Supremo” meeting?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.
Probably be lower voltage - 750-1500 - but if DC would surely give too many corrosion issues?
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.
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.
Conversely rail freight reduces both of these needs and is more environmentally friendly.
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.
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.In practice in all my life and studies, whenever DC is used there can be problems.
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.
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.
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.
For instance cars see a 1/3 of current emissions when converted to EV, with more as to grid greens.
And much safer too!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?
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?And much safer too!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?
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.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?
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.
UK government backs scheme for motorway cables to power lorries
E-highway study given £2m to draw up plans for overhead electric cables on motorway near Scunthorpewww.theguardian.com
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.
UK government backs scheme for motorway cables to power lorries | Travel and transport | The Guardian
E-highway study given £2m to draw up plans for overhead electric cables on motorway near Scunthorpeamp.theguardian.com
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.£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)?
Never mind this country, has it been done on a wide-scale basis anywhere yet?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.
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.
Creep like HS2?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).
Creep like HS2?