Hydrogen Trains

[whole diary]

[eightf48544]

I think I may have précised the piece too severely. It went on to say it would only be viable to produced hydrogen from electric from renewables.

I thought the bit about the hydrogen tanks being on the roof would be more controversial.

It did also say you would need an armoured floor if they were on the underframe.

[patch38]

Paul Baltrop reports...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-bristol-42782942/hydrogen-trains-could-bridge-gaps-in-electrification

[rogerw]

In promoting this Grayling seems to be ignoring the high cost of producing hydrogen as well as the possible safety issues relating to a high pressure container of highly flammable gas.  Is he clutching at straws to justify his stance on electification?

[Red Squirrel]

In promoting this Grayling seems to be ignoring the high cost of producing hydrogen as well as the possible safety issues relating to a high pressure container of highly flammable gas.  Is he clutching at straws to justify his stance on electification?

It has to be a smokescreen. Surely even Grayling doesn't really think this makes sense? Or is he pandering to the traditional fuel distribution lobby who, as I understand it, like the idea of hydrogen as it would give them something to distribute. 

Interesting that he mentioned battery-electric trains, sort of under his breath and in passing...

[stuving]

In promoting this Grayling seems to be ignoring the high cost of producing hydrogen as well as the possible safety issues relating to a high pressure container of highly flammable gas.  Is he clutching at straws to justify his stance on electification?

Is he promoting anything? I don't think so, and I suspect he'd deny it too.

Most of the media comments are down to Minsterologists with hyperactive tea leaves and a politician spinning a decision made to save money. I've said before that only electrification with benefit many times its estimated cost is going to get a tick from him, as he does not trust NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s estimates. So, for example, a four-minute time saving to Swansea isn't enough, given that the same money could be spent on a bit of line speed improvement instead. In those statements he's announcing a departmental decision, and speaking for the likes of NR as well.

But as to promoting hydrogen - or any other solution for a particular line - I don't see that he is. His function is rather that his decisions are based on proposals from others (NR, but not only). He may even decide in terms of journeys made by people, not trains on specific lines. At the moment he is saying that the options considered for those proposals should not be just the familiar ones, and "I don't want to find that there is a cheaper option that no-one has even looked at" (said with as much menace as a Grayling can manage).

Hence hydrogen, as one one those options. But given that Alstom are only just starting their first operational trial (two units), with first production units due in 2021 to one brave (or or suitably compensated) German Land, when would any decision be made? Long after he's gone, even if he lasts longer than the usual two years.

[Red Squirrel]

Fair enough; maybe it's one of those irregular verbs:

I seek ways of justifying neoliberalism
You think you're going to get alternatively-powered trains
He/She/It hopes to gain a more fashionable ministerial post sooner rather than later
We see through the dissembling
You don't get the investment you need
They get booted out at the next election.

Or something.

[broadgage]

I suspect that some of this ministerial talk of hydrogen is a delaying tactic to avoid actually doing anything now or in the near future.
Whenever there is a risk of actually having to do something, this may be postponed by proposing something else, preferably something not yet proven.

Electrification sounded a good idea but has degenerated into a vote loosing fiasco. So perhaps politicians could promote battery trains instead ? Well that was tried, but unfortunately battery technology has progressed to the extent that a battery train could be built right now with "off the shelf" components. Buy some battery trains ?
"oh no, we cant have that, better to move on to talk about hydrogen in years to come, rather than buying a small fleet of branch line battery trains right now".

[eightf48544]

Didn't we go through all this hype with the magical ERTMS^▸ (European Rail Traffic Management System.) moving block for the West Coast modernisation?

[broadgage]

Yes, and another comparison would attempts to delay HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) by looking at newer and more innovative technologies such as maglev or monorails, rather than getting on and starting to a build a conventional high speed line as being built elsewhere.

[eightf48544]

Back to hydrogen trains. interesting comment in a letter to Modern railways,

German trains will be used on lines without tunnels! Suggests roof mounted tanks could be a fire hazard ir they leaked in tunnels of which we have quite a lot.

[onthecushions]

So I am not allowed within 3.5m of a 25kV wire but I can travel in a carriage with 94kg of hydrogen at 350-700bar (atmospheres) above my head. This gas is notorious for leaking (it can diffuse through solids), ignites over limits of 4 - 75%, exploding between 18 - 60%. Even diesels (a relatively safe fuel that can quench a lighted match) are restricted in single line tunnels.

Catch a bus instead,

OTC

[JayMac]

Catch a bus instead,

One of these?



 

[GBM]

I note many hi-viz on board.  Demo run perhaps?

[stuving]

So I am not allowed within 3.5m of a 25kV wire but I can travel in a carriage with 94kg of hydrogen at 350-700bar (atmospheres) above my head. This gas is notorious for leaking (it can diffuse through solids), ignites over limits of 4 - 75%, exploding between 18 - 60%. Even diesels (a relatively safe fuel that can quench a lighted match) are restricted in single line tunnels.

Catch a bus instead,

OTC

You might have added that hydrogen leaking through small holes tends to self-ignite due to charge separation, and when burned it has a high volumetric energy content. But its gravimetric (specific) energy content is similar to other fuel gases, it's just much less dense. So when released, if not confined or ignited, it doesn't hang about but legs it for the stratosphere.

In my limited experience of hydrogen explosions (just the one, though big), it was the mechanical explosion that did the blast damage, with the initial hydrogen fire only secondary. Mind you, that tank was attached to a lot of chemical engineering, full of much more hydrogen and a wide range of hydrocarbons (also in the tank that blew up), and they did cause a BLEVE and a big fire.

But if you are worried about pressure vessels that might explode, there are not just hydrogen buses, but other gases (of various origins, some greener than others) in buses, cars, and (at least potentially) trains.  And ones that don't do transport, and could go bang without your even knowing they were there.

But doesn't a lot of that apply to steam engines too? Not just their well-attested historical habit of going pop, but the release of very hot steam in confined spaces too. I think you should at least keep clear of steam multiple units...

[Red Squirrel]

Ultimately, if you are going to insist on shifting large heavy things round then you will need to store or transmit decent amounts of energy to do it, and that is inherently dangerous. A Shire horse can easily kill a person if they get on the wrong side of it!