Alstom Hydrogen Multiple Units

[Reorte]

38 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Diesel for example requires lots of heat to ignite it (hence you can extinguish a lighted cigar in it) so in an incident provided the diesel doesn't come into contact with a very hot engine for example it won't ignite. Petrol is more volatile and can ignite far more easily while petrol vapour, LPG or Hydrogen only needs a stray electrical spark....

Rupture a petrol tank and you've got quite a good chance of that vapour being present, and with a liquid that can pool rather than a light gas that'll rapidly disperse I wouldn't be surprised if that risk is considerably higher than from a leaking hydrogen tanks. Note "I wouldn't be surprised" - I confess that I don't actually know.

 

The point is that are there really any good worries to be concerned about the safety aspect of hydrogen, beyond the "well it could happen!" level, which also applies to other things, like petrol, that in practice (in developed countries at least) are mitigated to a sufficient extent that we're not concerned about them? Hence by earlier point about having high voltage wires a few inches above your head, who knows where they could end up and in contact with what in the case of a derailment? It's a theoretical risk but again, an acceptable one - if arguing for electrification over hydrogen on safety grounds are you sure you're not just handwaving one of them away because it's familiar and worrying about the other more so than it deserves because it isn't? Or are they both in reality sufficiently low (and in both cases because we know how to deal with them, not because they can't pose any danger) that they don't enter in to the pros and cons of which is the best choice?

[APOLLO]

47 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

However there is flammable and there is flammable!

 

Diesel for example requires lots of heat to ignite it (hence you can extinguish a lighted cigar in it) so in an incident provided the diesel doesn't come into contact with a very hot engine for example it won't ignite. Petrol is more volatile and can ignite far more easily while petrol vapour, LPG or Hydrogen only needs a stray electrical spark....

 

It therefore stands to reason that in an accident / impact / derailment situation there is the potential for fire / explosion is far grater in Hydrogen powered vehicles than it is for diesel powered ones.

 

This is particularly true of the UK as opposed to Europe / NA as we cannot fit the hydrogen tanks to the roof where the Hydrogen can vent easily to the atmosphere and stands a lot less chance of coming into contact with sources of ignition.

 

Another reason why electric solutions OLE and battery solutions should be being pushed through with far more vigour in the UK and the Government needs to ditch this obsession with 'wonder fuels' which save HM Treasury cash (as the costs / risks associated with Hydrogen powered solutions overwhelmingly fall to the 'dynamic power of the free market' instead)

 

Agree, especially the last paragraph.

 

Gas and railway trains  ---  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintinshill_rail_disaster There were other horrific gas related train accidents, Ais Gill, Hawes, Charfield etc. Gas was phased out for lighting quickly after these incidents.

 

Answer - Electrify THE LOT. More Nuclear power stations, lots more as natural gas rapidly depletes (another story). Otherwise it's Shanks Pony !!

 

Brit15

 

 

 

 

[Zomboid]

47 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Another reason why electric solutions OLE and battery solutions should be being pushed through with far more vigour in the UK and the Government needs to ditch this obsession with 'wonder fuels' which save HM Treasury cash (as the costs / risks associated with Hydrogen powered solutions overwhelmingly fall to the 'dynamic power of the free market' instead)

Completely agree on this, but I can't see a reality in which we get sufficient electrification that we don't need some kind of "self propelled" passenger trains. Maybe only for the long, sparsely served routes like Stranraer, Wick, Central Wales etc. Hydrogen fuel cells are worth investigation for those kind of applications at the very least.

 

It would be utter madness to claim it's the solution for East West Rail or something like that, though. That just needs wires.

[APOLLO]

6 minutes ago, Reorte said:

Rupture a petrol tank and you've got quite a good chance of that vapour being present, and with a liquid that can pool rather than a light gas that'll rapidly disperse I wouldn't be surprised if that risk is considerably higher than from a leaking hydrogen tanks. Note "I wouldn't be surprised" - I confess that I don't actually know.

 

The point is that are there really any good worries to be concerned about the safety aspect of hydrogen, beyond the "well it could happen!" level, which also applies to other things, like petrol, that in practice (in developed countries at least) are mitigated to a sufficient extent that we're not concerned about them? Hence by earlier point about having high voltage wires a few inches above your head, who knows where they could end up and in contact with what in the case of a derailment? It's a theoretical risk but again, an acceptable one - if arguing for electrification over hydrogen on safety grounds are you sure you're not just handwaving one of them away because it's familiar and worrying about the other more so than it deserves because it isn't? Or are they both in reality sufficiently low (and in both cases because we know how to deal with them, not because they can't pose any danger) that they don't enter in to the pros and cons of which is the best choice?

 

You REALLY need to study the physics of Hydrogen, and the economics of its production also. I reckon long term its a no starter. Time will tell.

 

Brit15

[Michael Hodgson]

57 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

However there is flammable and there is flammable!

 

And of course there is also inflammable.

[Reorte]

57 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

 

You REALLY need to study the physics of Hydrogen, and the economics of its production also. I reckon long term its a no starter. Time will tell.

 

What issue with the physics of hydrogen do you have in mind that you believe I am sufficiently unaware of to be missing a valid, relevant point? Its low energy density imposes practical limits but there's nothing in its physics that imposes significant risks compared to what we already handle. Comparisons with Ais Gill and Quintinshill are misleading, they're really not comparing like with like just because there was a gas involved (for starters, were we talking about wooden bodied vehicles in those? And a heavier gas that will not disperse as rapidly?)

 

The economics of hydrogen production don't stack up for it being the sole source of moving trains, or anywhere close, but that's not what we're talking about. Economics also do have a habit of adjusting to the reality of the situation.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Reorte

[Andy Hayter]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

- if it gets involved in an incident where the stored hydrogen is released in an uncontrolled manor the consequences could be far more severe than petrol or even LPG

 

 

 

 

 

While not disagreeing with the engineering points made by your good self and @APOLLO, I think the important word in that phrase is "could".  The other point about hydrogen is that if there is a release, because of its mobility and small atomic size it tends to dissipate very quickly.  In the event of a catastrophe then would you prefer to be trapped in a carriage  surrounded by a cloud of hydrogen that is a few seconds will no longer be there or sat in a pool of diesel.

[woodenhead]

Let us not forget that Battery EV are not without risk to occupants, no 'fuel' present but the batteries themselves could prove lethal

https://www.forbes.com/wheels/news/battery-car-fires/

 

No solution that involves power is without risk, it is about the amount of risk v benefit

[Zomboid]

The thing with energy storage of any kind is that there's a lot of energy in a small volume, that's the whole point. If it is released in an uncontrolled manner then things can get exciting.

 

How you safely handle stored energy varies depending on the type, but the principle that if it's not properly respected then it'll bite doesn't change.

[PenrithBeacon]

1 hour ago, APOLLO said:

 

...

Answer - Electrify THE LOT.

...

 

There is a huge cost to the infrastructure of electrification, I'd be surprised if we see another electrification project until hydrogen power is proved that it cannot do what it says on the tin.

Quite simply, 25kV electrification has priced itself out of the market

[PenrithBeacon]

I'm intrigued by the enormous size of the hydrogen fuel tank in railway vehicles when Toyota has a car that has a range of 600+km with what seems to be a fairly standard sized fuel tank

https://www.toyota-europe.com/world-of-toyota/articles-news-events/2020/mirai-2020 

Edited November 12, 2021 by PenrithBeacon

[Reorte]

20 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

There is a huge cost to the infrastructure of electrification, I'd be surprised if we see another electrification project until hydrogen power is proved that it cannot do what it says on the tin.

Quite simply, 25kV electrification has priced itself out of the market

 

Hydrogen seems to be getting looked at for fairly long but not very busy lines, which will keep electrification on the cards for shorter and / or busier routes that haven't yet been. I'd look at it the other way around, any proposed (plausible) electrification schemes won't be affected by hydrogen unless it turns out considerably better than anyone expects.

[Huw Griffiths]

On 11/11/2021 at 00:24, Michael Hodgson said:

They may be British but the refueling system comes from Germany ...

 

 

 

I just hope we don't get treated to loads of comments along the lines of: "Oh, the humanity!" ...

 

Huw.

[Mike_Walker]

34 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

There is a huge cost to the infrastructure of electrification, I'd be surprised if we see another electrification project until hydrogen power is proved that it cannot do what it says on the tin.

Quite simply, 25kV electrification has priced itself out of the market

Electrification hasn't priced itself out of the market.  The problem is/was that the GWML electrification scheme was so badly botched; estimates cooked up on the back of an envelope,  no proper surveys done in advance and trying to move the goal posts after work had started led to the costs of the project spiralling out of control - Network Rail appeared to have no idea what things were costing or what was being spent.  Eventually the Treasury took fright, understandably, and the project was scaled back along with some others being cancelled.  

 

Since then a lot of lessons have been learnt and some small schemes are now progressing which hopefully will set a standard going forward for bigger schemes.  I don't think anyone is suggesting hydrogen is the answer for all routes and trains.

 

[Phatbob]

28 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Quite simply, 25kV electrification has priced itself out of the market

Without libling anybody, I think it would be more accurate to say that Network Rail's lack of control over its contractors and its escalating costs coupled to Failing Grayling's illconsidered reaction to this is what has, for the time being, led to the widespread perception that 25kV OHLE in unaffordable.  DafT's imposition of 'bimode rollingstock solutions' on all recent major projects has substantially undermind the business case for further electrification and gap-filling on many routes. 

[Zomboid]

16 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

Hydrogen seems to be getting looked at for fairly long but not very busy lines, which will keep electrification on the cards for shorter and / or busier routes that haven't yet been. I'd look at it the other way around, any proposed (plausible) electrification schemes won't be affected by hydrogen unless it turns out considerably better than anyone expects.

I think the trunk and secondary though routes will be electrified, short branches will be on batteries and long, quieter routes will need something else. Which is where Hydrogen comes in as an option.

 

They're may be some sense on some routes to have short battery gaps for particularly expensive problem areas. If a train can carry about 10km of battery power without too much weight penalty it may make small discontinuities viable. Though probably not suitable for the trunk freight routes, and we'd want a core continuous network.

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

There is a huge cost to the infrastructure of electrification, I'd be surprised if we see another electrification project until hydrogen power is proved that it cannot do what it says on the tin.

Quite simply, 25kV electrification has priced itself out of the market

 

Strange how the rest of Europe (and indeed Scotland over the past decade) who been pushing on with it over the past decades if its so very uneconomic!

 

No the REAL problem is the bone headed idiots in Whitehall who let all the expertise BR had built up wither and die in the two decades following privatisation, then go and tell NR to instigate a simply huge electrification programme that it was ill equipped to handle.

 

Its no surprise that given the dearth of knowledge (both within NR and its subcontractor base) things went very wrong - but the ultimate blame for that lies directly on HM Treasury and this obsession with, as Roger Ford put it, 'Byonic Duckweed' to power trains and thus avoid having to spend Government money on electrical infrastructure.

 

The most ironic thing is, after a lot of problems, and just as NR was finally getting on top of things, HM Treasury pulled the plug and all that knowledge within NR and the supply chain is starting to fade - greatly increasing the chances of it all going wrong the next time a large scale electrification programme is attempted.

 

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

 

While not disagreeing with the engineering points made by your good self and @APOLLO, I think the important word in that phrase is "could".  The other point about hydrogen is that if there is a release, because of its mobility and small atomic size it tends to dissipate very quickly.  In the event of a catastrophe then would you prefer to be trapped in a carriage  surrounded by a cloud of hydrogen that is a few seconds will no longer be there or sat in a pool of diesel.

 

Agreed - but if something 'could' happen then it usually means it is a risk factor that needs managing.

 

As I have said diesel needs considerable heat to ignite it so providing the incident didn't involve fire then sitting in a pool of diesel is actually relatively safe. sitting in amongst petrol or hydrogen fumes is less so as all it would take is a spark from a severed wire to ignite it.

 

Against that, as you say Hydrogen does disperse relatively quickly so the danger period if you like is less than petrol (which we don't use in trains anyway).

 

In France, Germany, etc the obvious mitigation is having the hydrogen tanks on the roof which makes them far less likely to cause a problem than underslung or in body mounted solutions. Our loading gauge precludes that and although trains are a very safe method of transport things like the recent Salisbury accident or Trains hitting heavy farm machinery at occupation crossings do happen.

 

Thus, although Hydrogen is likely to be needed to replace oil based fuels in both heavy freight locos and lightly trafficked rural lines its not quite the 'easy' solution the media (or the Government for that matter) would have us believe and is why electric traction needs to be maximised.

[APOLLO]

1 hour ago, PenrithBeacon said:

There is a huge cost to the infrastructure of electrification, I'd be surprised if we see another electrification project until hydrogen power is proved that it cannot do what it says on the tin.

Quite simply, 25kV electrification has priced itself out of the market

 

And loads of brand new masts destined for the GWR electrification were scrapped, could have been stored and / or used elsewhere.

 

I'm sure secondary lines could be electrified a lot cheaper, to many consultants, fingers in pies, useless, clueless politicians, etc etc. 

 

Hydrogen may help a bit, but it's not the answer and won't even have a chance of becoming main stream unless base energy cost (electricity cost) reduces significantly, which it probably won't. 

 

Stay at home, work from home, holiday at home etc will be our future I'm sorry to say.

 

Brit15

 

 

 

 

[phil-b259]

48 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

 

And loads of brand new masts destined for the GWR electrification were scrapped, could have been stored and / or used elsewhere.

 

 

Yup

 

And done because HM Treasury told NR keeping such 'surplus equipment' in store was 'a waste of taxpayers money' and it should instead be sold for scrap (at much lower prices than it cost to purchase) in line with the Governments definition of 'efficient business practices' (aka flogging off as much as possible)

Edited November 12, 2021 by phil-b259

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

I think the trunk and secondary though routes will be electrified, short branches will be on batteries and long, quieter routes will need something else. Which is where Hydrogen comes in as an option.

 

They're may be some sense on some routes to have short battery gaps for particularly expensive problem areas. If a train can carry about 10km of battery power without too much weight penalty it may make small discontinuities viable. Though probably not suitable for the trunk freight routes, and we'd want a core continuous network.

If the whole of the main system is electrified but there are short non-electrified branches or  diversionary routes etc , it probably makes economic sense to electrify those too rather than go to a non-standard technology just to fill in the gaps.  It does make sense to consider alternative solutions to be sought for long-non-electrified routes where installing OHLE is a much bigger project, routes such as the remote parts of Scotland and Wales, essentially the places where RETB was the answer to the disproportionate cost of modern signalling.   

 

Failures are inevitable, but it's not enough that they should be infrequent, and that passengers be evacuated and alternative forward transport arranged promptly; reliability still suffers badly if we can't run other trains because of damaged infrastructure.  So a case can be made for adopting a different propulsion technology across the whole system if it removes the chaos and disruptions associated with OHLE dewirements and maintenance and doesn't have the safety issues inherent in 3rd rail.  There is a real value in the ability to complete the journey albeit in degraded mode after a failure.

 

Besides I don't want to model the knitting!

 

 

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, Michael Hodgson said:

If the whole of the main system is electrified but there are short non-electrified branches

 

 

This is where battery technology could come into play - particularly if through services are provided which can use the 25LKV to recharge.

 

One example might be the Oxenholme - Windermere branch where I understand some services start / originate in Manchester

[APOLLO]

The Liverpool - Manchester & Liverpool - Wigan lines were the first to be recently electrified, they came a bit over time, not sure of cost, but both lines were very well carried out. My son was university commuting daily Wigan - Liverpool during the works. Only a couple of times was he delayed by engineering over runs, and a few days where he had to go via the Wigan Wallgate -Kirkby - Liverpool route. A job well done.

 

The later Manchester - Bolton - Preston - Blackpool job had quite a few problems, but again a job well done. We now have some brand new EMU trains, a new depot at Springs Branch and everything seems quite OK now.  

 

Time the Trans Pennine nettle was grasped and work re-started in earnest. I'm thoroughly tired of the SE / London getting far too much rail investment £.

 

Brit15

[black and decker boy]

Any talk of using hydrogen to push the cost risk onto private operators misses the point that we no longer have private operators taking commercial risk on U.K. railways.

 

we are now in the post-privatisation, GBR railways world of management contracts where DfT ultimately take cost & revenue risk and the operator is simply paid a (very low) fee for running the trains with a lot of KPI performance metrics to meet or lose part of their fee.

 

in terms of skills loss, there is a fear that the current widespread voluntary severance offering across NR and TOCs will see a huge talent loss

[phil-b259]

46 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

Any talk of using hydrogen to push the cost risk onto private operators misses the point that we no longer have private operators taking commercial risk on U.K. railways.

 

we are now in the post-privatisation, GBR railways world of management contracts where DfT ultimately take cost & revenue risk and the operator is simply paid a (very low) fee for running the trains with a lot of KPI performance metrics to meet or lose part of their fee.

 

 

The point is there are several Private sector train building and leasing companies who will happily provide an 'out of the box' Hydrogen solution. GBR has done NOTHING to affect the cosy world of train leasing companies based in tax havens procuring trains from private sector manufacturers for the contracted out train operators to run.

 

If a Hydrogen train provided by say Alstom doesn't work by contrast, is delivered late or ends up costing way more than planned then the PRIVATE sector carries the can - so this will be seen as a very attractive solution by Whitehall. Not only does it keep their city mates and financiers happy it also offloads the risk away from the Government owned (and micromanaged) Network Rail.

 

This contrasts with anything done by Network Rail - where the risk remains with the state and ministers cannot dodge responsibility if things go wrong.