End of Diesel by 2040?

[D854_Tiger]

The future was more interesting in the old days. Back then people were looking forward to nuclear powered cars and weekend holidays to the planet Pluto, now people exist in a state of angst about a future of climate change, globalisation, the gig economy etc etc.

 

Ah the future, predicting that is like predicting next week's lottery numbers and the week after.

 

The chances of getting it right are next to jack s**t but someone will and they will become very wealthy because of it.

 

Same with predicting the economy and technology, some small few get it right and become billionaires because of it, yet even they would have to admit more by accident than design.

 

When two tech students were designing an Internet search engine, in the back of their parents garage, they had an idea, they knew what they were doing and they knew what they wanted but I doubt they had any idea that it would result in a global corporation big enough for world domination.

[Sheffield]

How will the Army and Navy manage without diesel power? What ever else goes wrong politicians always seem to be able to build engines of war, including very large aircraft carriers with very large diesel engines.

But it is all about politicans sounding good, nothing more..

[Reorte]

How will the Army and Navy manage without diesel power? What ever else goes wrong politicians always seem to be able to build engines of war, including very large aircraft carriers with very large diesel engines.

But it is all about politicans sounding good, nothing more..

They manage perfectly well in the past with horses and sails! (tongue firmly in cheek of course)

[jjb1970]

They’ll continue to use liquid fuels, either conventional crude middle distillates or bio-fuel alternatives. For all I’m not a particular fan of bio-fuels there are some applications where they may be the most realistic lower carbon alternative to oil fuels for an awful long time. In terms of global marine fuel usage, the amount used by military users (in peace time at least, in war time there are other things to worry about) is basically insignificant.

[PenrithBeacon]

Notwithstanding the fact that I own a car, the sooner we are rid of the infernal combustion engine the better. I think that the government should be congratulated on this policy not criticised.

 

There are technologies which are maturing which can replace diesels and I think they should be welcomed.

[The Stationmaster]

Notwithstanding the fact that I own a car, the sooner we are rid of the infernal combustion engine the better. I think that the government should be congratulated on this policy not criticised.

 

There are technologies which are maturing which can replace diesels and I think they should be welcomed.

 

When these 'new technologies' can shift a 5,000 ton freight train up a 1 in 100 gradient within a loco package weighing no more than 125 tons and without a gasp or a pause to take breath I'll believe in them.  Or to give them an even simpler task when they can move the same weight of train at 60 mph on the level I will be suitably impressed that somebody has indeed found an answer to replacing the diesel powered railway loco.  (BTW I exclude of course machines drawing power from an overhead line - I'm sure one of them could already do the job if designed to do it.)

[PenrithBeacon]

5000 tons? I have the impression that the limit for a 66 was 2200 tons. Perhaps I’m wrong

[Rugd1022]

5000 tons? I have the impression that the limit for a 66 was 2200 tons. Perhaps I’m wrong

 

I think Mike might be referring to the 59s. When working the HOBC with top 'n' tailed 66s we had 3,300tons all told and certain gradients were taken slower than others (the 1 in 200 climb out of Northampton up to Roade was a sometimes) but once the momentum builds up we could coast for thirty or forty miles before needing to touch the brake.

[Glorious NSE]

Notwithstanding the fact that I own a car, the sooner we are rid of the infernal combustion engine the better. I think that the government should be congratulated on this policy not criticised.

 

There are technologies which are maturing which can replace diesels and I think they should be welcomed.

 

I would also agree with the principle of moving away from diesel, unfortunately the reality is that announcement comes against a background of the UK increasing use of and locking-in the use of diesel power due to other recent decisions like cancellation of electrification.

 

We're on the cusp of having a gigantic surplus of EMUs available, and there's very few places they can reasonably be redeployed - if we'd got electrification right we could already be significantly reduced use of diesel.

 

 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Glorious NSE

[jjb1970]

Something worth pointing out is that ending use of internal combustion engines in cars is not the same thing as moving away from cars. Electric vehicles are increasingly attractive and increasing sales.

[tamperman36]

Its not so much finding the technology to get the loco moving, that's just down to the gearing on the electric motor (even diesel locos use electric traction motors).

 

Its finding a good, viable, sustainable non pollutant source of the power or power unit.

[Glorious NSE]

(even diesel locos use electric traction motors)

 

 

But (at least in terms of the passenger railway) we have very few diesel loco's, but lots of diesel units, almost all of which have hydraulic transmission not electric.

[The Stationmaster]

I think Mike might be referring to the 59s. When working the HOBC with top 'n' tailed 66s we had 3,300tons all told and certain gradients were taken slower than others (the 1 in 200 climb out of Northampton up to Roade was a ###### sometimes) but once the momentum builds up we could coast for thirty or forty miles before needing to touch the brake.

 

Exactly so Nidge.  and it is indeed a problem with both of those designs that although they can shift tonnage, and a heck of a lot of tonnage in the case of a 59, they do tend to do so at rather a low speed on severe gradients.  Going up the 3 miles or so of generally steeper than 1 in 200 up to Savernake the 5,000 (long) ton trains were definitely not going fast but they were equally definitely keeping going.   But then we had just the same situation with pairs of 37s on West Wales oil trains through the Severn Tunnel where the speed up out of the dip dropped to very slow once the back of the train was off the falling gradient

 

When we did the 5,000 ton trailing load trial out of Whatley Quarry with a 59 we had a second 59 inside it 'just in case' so we were actually testing a bit over 5,100 long) tons trailing load and the 'super creep' did cut when we'd got the bulk of the train on the 1 in 138 rising round the curve from Frome North towards Clink Road - but that was only for a few minutes and that was the only time it cut in.  As far as I can remember the only time we actually used a second 59 in the planned working for loading reasons was when we did the 12,000 tonne trial from Merehead and the second engine was marshalled mid-train, US style, because of concerns about coupling strength and brake release.  As it happened the train parted between Witham and Blatchbridge Jcn on the 'see saw' gradient profile mainly due to the rate of brake release holding back the rear as it hit a rising gradient after the front had been slowed going over a summit onto a falling gradient.  Not entirely unexpected as the rate of brake release was one of the reasons we carried out the trial and we might have got away with it if the mid-train loco had had auto couplers instead of hook and shackle because that was where it parted.

 

The heaviest Merehead trains only seem to load to about 4,200 - 4,400 tonnes nowadays so there is actually plenty in reserve as far as the 59s are concerned. 

[royaloak]

The heaviest Merehead trains only seem to load to about 4,200 - 4,400 tonnes nowadays so there is actually plenty in reserve as far as the 59s are concerned. 

I think that is so they can be guaranteed to fit in the loops and get out of our way in good time.

[DCB]

Sounds like Lloyd George announcing plans for 1940 at the end of WW1, mind you Mr A Hitler was already planning 1940 in 1918.  

[62613]

Sounds like Lloyd George announcing plans for 1940 at the end of WW1, mind you Mr A Hitler was already planning 1940 in 1918.  

Hitler was a nobody in 1918; planning anything was anathema to him. One of the World's greatest opportunists

[jjb1970]

Nobody knows the future, that is true, however to say we shouldn't do anything because we don't know what the world will look like in 2040 is a little silly and an invitation to man kind to go running off a cliff edge. I see this as the equivalent of Pascal's wager. If we make a transition to a low emissions oil free(-ish) economy and global warming is a myth or carbon capture from air is developed we will at least prevent local pollution, improve public health and get out of a position where we can potentially be held ransom by the availability of oil. If on the other hand we don't do it and global warming runs away then we're done for.

[giz]

Nobody knows the future, that is true, however to say we shouldn't do anything because we don't know what the world will look like in 2040 is a little silly and an invitation to man kind to go running off a cliff edge. I see this as the equivalent of Pascal's wager. If we make a transition to a low emissions oil free(-ish) economy and global warming is a myth or carbon capture from air is developed we will at least prevent local pollution, improve public health and get out of a position where we can potentially be held ransom by the availability of oil. If on the other hand we don't do it and global warming runs away then we're done for.

The trouble with that though is cost. If alternative energy sources are cheaper then they will be adopted anyway but if they are more expensive and people are forced to use them millions of people who would otherwise become more prosperous will be condemned to remain in absolute poverty.

If global warming runs away we are done for anyway because the emissions cuts that would be required to stop it would kill billions.

[jjb1970]

The economic case for renewable energy is already becoming positive. We are already seeing bids to build wind farms subsidy free and the cost of offshore wind is plummeting. If you can get the range you need from an EV why would people want an IC engine? PHEVs already offer a good compromise between zero emissions motoring and long range on an IC engine without range anxiety when you need it and costs are becoming attractive. I actually believe that all this political stuff is just guff to make politicians feel good that they're doing something important as the transition is not only already happening, it's accelerating and it is accelerating because it is increasingly what industry and consumers want.

[giz]

The economic case for renewable energy is already becoming positive. We are already seeing bids to build wind farms subsidy free and the cost of offshore wind is plummeting. If you can get the range you need from an EV why would people want an IC engine? PHEVs already offer a good compromise between zero emissions motoring and long range on an IC engine without range anxiety when you need it and costs are becoming attractive. I actually believe that all this political stuff is just guff to make politicians feel good that they're doing something important as the transition is not only already happening, it's accelerating and it is accelerating because it is increasingly what industry and consumers want.

Fine, if that is true we don't  have to do anything, the problem is solved and deadlines aren't required. But I'll believe what you are saying when I see some real action, energy costs stabilise or start to reduce and CO2 emissions really reduce (in spite of all the money the Germans have spent on renewables their emissions are increasing).

The big problem with intermitant energy sources such as wind and solar is the large volume of storage required and there doesn't appear to be a solution for that currently, other than retaining gas power as backup. I saw an estimate recently that to go 100% renewable that California would need the equivalent of 110,000 Tesla Big Batteries (as the one supplied to Australia) and the UK would need about the same.

[APOLLO]

Transition certainly is happening, but perhaps not all consumers welcome it. There are many pros & cons, too many to list and each will move up / down the scale of importance / relevance as time and technology progress. Our politicians are clueless.

 

I don't want an electric car, or even a hybrid, but then at age 65 I won't be motoring much after 2040. EV's / Hybrids are currently (!!) very expensive and I can't justify one (along with the depreciation) for the motoring I do. 

 

There are no short cuts or cheap easy options in the energy game. Our (UK's) Natural Gas  increasingly is imported from countries of dubious political regimes - (Russia, Qatar) Can we trust them to supply us without interuption long term ? (they both have lots of gas that's for sure). Wind certainly helps, we need Tidal Barrages also (Severn, Morecambe Bay etc)

 

Germany has been mentioned - a technological powerhouse for sure - BUT Germany has / is closing all it's Nuclear power stations and building new Lignite powered stations. Google Lignite, its a very poor grade of coal and burns awfully emissions wise. When Didcot power station was closed (due to meeting it's emissions quota I believe), it's main generators were taken to Avonmouth Docks and shipped to Germany - for use in a new lignite power station.

 

I shake my head at all this green this that etc when things like the above happen. Prepare for a very expensive future energy wise - green or otherwise.

 

Brit15

[jjb1970]

Germany is paying for a particularly misjudged kneejerk reaction to the Fukushima incident. In funny way I found it reassuring to know that they also suffer from some rather dire political decisions. For all that renewable energy is increasing its share of supply, and not just in Europe. The US and China are both developing clean energy with some very ambitious projects for example. Obviously the transition won't happen immediately but it is accelerating and I suspect politicians have fixed on 2040 because they have been advised it is a good balance between sounding ambitious whilst also being very achievable.

[Strathwood]

My first thoughts regards to this debate, relate to how will we manage to keep the lights on in our homes, commercial premises, maintain the internet and tv, heating and everything else that demands electricity, from our existing power stations and those already in the pipepline that will still take many years to complete. Notwithstanding any disasters ala Three Mile Island, Chernobyl or any political/financial disagreements with our French and Chinese business partners within the power industry in the coming years. Not to mention just how much power drain will be placed on our ageing existing distribution network by the present Western Region electrification ventures, HS2 when completed, Cross Rail 2, or indeed any further expansion of the tram networks and housing within our cities etc.

 

In addition to this the reducing supplies of natural gas from both our own and imported sources will tempt more households and commercial concerns into solar and wind power, the manufacture of much of their componants comes from China with regards to solar and introduces other chemical issues and political concerns to the arguements.

 

Add these issues to our government ministers together with how they intend to solve other pressing matters such as the NHS, more affordable and energy efficient housing, reducing unemployment, an ageing population, terrorism, dealing with crime, drugs, future water and drainage/flood control the list is endless.

 

For most individuals and politicians in particular their own personal issues, and well being will innevitably concern them the most. For politicians their prime concerns will always be about losing their seat (income) as indeed it is for anyone who is employed or even self employed in losing their market or ability to work. Therefore getting them to actually focus onto something and commit to it, perhaps learn lessons from it as it progresses over a period of years stands very little hope. Many of us may recall the splendid lines from Yes Minister when Sir Humphrey Appleby suggests this could be your most courageous decision yet Minister, and how Hacker reacts to that remark each and every time! In many ways we were fortunate to see the Channel Tunnel actually completed considering how far back the idea went to Sir Edward Watkin and The South Eastern Railway in 1880!

 

So ladies and gents in Westminster, thinking caps on please, blinkers off, prioritise matters and make some sensible decisions and then commit to some of these perhaps very harsh and brave realities whilst we still have the time to perhaps deal with some of these issues. Please...

 

Kevin Derrick

Strathwood Publishing

[Allegheny1600]

Hear, hear, Kevin!

Wrt our ageing power distribution network, Balfour Beatty Power Networks are still very busy rebuilding same and indeed, building new lines. I'm sure that proven expertise like that will continue in much the same vein.

It's the generation of energy that is out biggest future challenge, not the distribution of it.

 

I believe that this is a problem looking for a solution in that, by 2040 domestic supplies of oil will be so outrageously expensive, most users will have switched to alternative means anyway, maybe even some means that we are currently unaware of. In itself, this will reduce emissions substantially.

Do the politicos who suggest this (the OT) not realise that?

As time moves on and future governments of different shades and different priorities, surely more railway electrification projects will occur? Diesel use in this country will surely reduce as the fuel itself become much more expensive.

However, there is one sector in this country and worldwide where it will surely, always be needed - agriculture!

Similar to Mikes (S-M) observation that no (battery powered) machine could haul a 5000T train over hilly terrain*, no battery powered tractor would be likely to be able to plough a field or harvest a crop of wheat in a day. Neither could solar power provide that much concentrated horsepower and the chance of electrifying via overhead? Zero!

So! Diesel in one form or another will always be needed for specialised users.

Cheers,

John.

 

*Overhead electric locos, no problem! See such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iore

[ess1uk]

Related

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42944523

Think internal combustion will be around for a while in some form

Unless we go back to horses

Edited February 17, 2018 by ess1uk