Decarbonisation of UK Rail Network

[modernrail]

I have spotted a couple of interesting articles on decarbonisation projects for traction power in the last week:

http://www.railway-technology.com/f...h-rail-networks-renewable-revolution-4647194/

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsande...gyfutureslab/newssummary/news_6-1-2017-9-34-9

I don't think I have seen a thread yet on this on the forum. I would be interested in views on:

- What activity there is within Network Rail at the moment to source traction power from renewables?
- Does Network Rail generate any of the power it uses? I know LU has a power station in Greenwich but I am not aware of any similar Network Rail assets;
- What activity is there within Network Rail to improve energy efficiency (distinct from the residual power requirement coming from renewables) and what scope is there for major reductions in generated power requirements from energy efficiency works);
- Does Network Rail see this as an important area for innovation, or does it just see it as a do minimum area, as power costs are ultimately paid for by TOCs and freight users?
- Do any of the TOC's throw their weight around in seeking some input on how power is procured.
- Are there any particularly easy wins out there, and do forum members know of any interesting developments technology wise in the UK or elsewhere?

I think we should keep the thread to traction power. There are very obvious savings on stations etc (for instance LED lighting) but traction power probably makes up in excess of 90% of a TOC's total power usage.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

As an Imperial College alumni and a passionate de-carbon/renewable man I love this. I don't think you can keep the thread purely on traction. As the Imperial brief says, electrification is needed also. 2050 is the date set. Wind can be generated at night , solar can not. CCGT is still carbon based - so we need to get our baseload nuclear up also and run freight at night.

Bi-modes are a good solution in that they allow running on electric/low carbon where possible. Still needs wires strung up IMHO.

The thread should thus stay in Infrastructure as low carbon is infrastructure - rather than traction. I may link this thread to the sticky on electrification.

 

[snowball]

Quote from the page at your second link:

the third rail on most rail networks is also used for signalling purposes,

 

[hwl]

Isn't NR electricity contract with EdF for Nuclear so technically job done a long time ago?

 

[modernrail]

Isn't NR electricity contract with EdF for Nuclear so technically job done a long time ago?

Interesting. Yes it does appear that there is a contract to buy up to 3.2TWh of nuclear for a term of 10 years from 2013.

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...il-electrification-programme-in-a-generation#

Does anybody know how much juice Network Rail uses a year? Obviously the current number will grow with the eventual completion of new electrification schemes, but it would be interesting to see the proportion of the current consumption that is provided via this contract with EDF.

 

[rebmcr]

Isn't NR electricity contract with EdF for Nuclear so technically job done a long time ago?

We'd still need one of the ROSCOs to modify the Pacer fleet to be nuclear-powered post-2020.

 

[modernrail]

We'd still need one of the ROSCOs to modify the Pacer fleet to be nuclear-powered post-2020.

The Iranians might be able to help with that as they have experience of Pacers and Nuclear. A rare combination.

 

[Lrd]

The LU power supply at Greenwich is only a back up, all power is sourced from the National Grid now.

 

[Flying Phil]

How much scope is there for regenerative braking? The technology must have been improving since Formula 1 started to use KERS...

 

[najaB]

We'd still need one of the ROSCOs to modify the Pacer fleet to be nuclear-powered post-2020.

There's three words that should strike fear into the heart of any thinking man: nuclear powered Pacer.

 

[HSTEd]

Whilst it is often trumpeted that electricity from EdF's ex-CEGB AGR/PWR fleet is used to power the railway, there is absolutely no real way of determining what power was actually used.

In almost all cases the electricity will come from a random grab bag of generating sources near where the electricity is used. Such deals are normally just pointless virtue-signalling.

All the railway should be expected to do as far as decarbonisation is to electrify and power its trains with grid electricity.
If the state wants decarbonised railways it should decarbonise the electricty supply by building nuclear and tidal power stations directly with state capital.
It should not agree ludicrously generous subsidy schemes like 'strike price' schemes or feed in tarrifs that exist solely to transfer large sums of money from the public purse in the pockets of various financiers. [See Hinkley Point or the Swansea Lagoon scheme for examples]

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Whilst it is often trumpeted that electricity from EdF's ex-CEGB AGR/PWR fleet is used to power the railway, there is absolutely no real way of determining what power was actually used.

In almost all cases the electricity will come from a random grab bag of generating sources near where the electricity is used.

Exactly - about 10 years ago in my house north of Preston Lancs, we were contacted to change supplier of electricity. However, there is only one street power line and only one power line into the house - so all a bit of a farce IMHO.

All the railway should be expected to do as far as decarbonisation is to electrify and power its trains with grid electricity.

EXACTAMUNDO

 

[swt_passenger]

How much scope is there for regenerative braking? The technology must have been improving since Formula 1 started to use KERS...

Most post privatisation EMU stock already does it, the upcoming fleet replacements mean an even higher proportion can and will use re-gen.

 

[edwin_m]

Rather loath to mention it on here in view of the reaction it usually gets, but converting third rail lines to 25kV overhead would cut their power consumption by about 20%.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Rather loath to mention it on here in view of the reaction it usually gets, but converting third rail lines to 25kV overhead would cut their power consumption by about 20%.

Sounds good to me man - when it comes up for renewal convert to 25kv AC OHLE with auto transformer - I love it.

 

[HSTEd]

Rather loath to mention it on here in view of the reaction it usually gets, but converting third rail lines to 25kV overhead would cut their power consumption by about 20%.

As opposed to spending that (ridiculously huge pile of) money on simply electrifying something that isn't electric yet.
It is amazing how much people want the 25kV to cannibalise the already electric railway.
If decarbonisation of electricity occurs then losses en route are largely irrelevant (and leaving aside that the 20% figure appears to be for the worst cases the RSSB and Network Rail could dig up, modern rectification technologies exist that can potentially cut that drastically).

If decarbonisation doesn't occur then the losses are effectively irrelevant because we are in serious trouble either way.

Sounds good to me man - when it comes up for renewal convert to 25kv AC OHLE with auto transformer - I love it.

Given the costs of 25kV the more likely outcome would be de-electrification.
The RSSB study that is used to justify the talk of conversion has been demonstrated to be based on entirely nonsensical figures.
The true cost of 25kV electrification is approaching five times what it claimed. (£2.5m/km instead of ~£500k/km)

 

[GRALISTAIR]

As opposed to spending that (ridiculously huge pile of) money on simply electrifying something that isn't electric yet.
It is amazing how much people want the 25kV to cannibalise the already electric railway.

I do agree that electrifying what is not already electric must take priority. That will give the biggest bang for the buck on carbon reduction.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I do agree that electrifying what is not already electric must take priority. That will give the biggest bang for the buck on carbon reduction.

Not necessarily. Any unelectrified railway with less than 1/5 of the usage of the BML, SWML or SEML should not be prioritised over converting any of those 3 (for instance).

 

[HSTEd]

Not necessarily. Any unelectrified railway with less than 1/5 of the usage of the BML, SWML or SEML should not be prioritised over converting any of those 3 (for instance).

Assuming that third rail is inherently losing 20% of the power put into it and nothing can possibly improve that figure.
Which is clearly not the case.

You would also have to include cases of DC power supply strengthening or adding additional conductors in parallel with existing circuits to do a proper cost analysis.

Additionally that assumes that energy consumption is the same as carbon production, which is clearly not the case.
If electricity is zero carbon then it doesn't matter how much is lost, it is always better to electrify more than to convert existing.

 

[yorksrob]

Not necessarily. Any unelectrified railway with less than 1/5 of the usage of the BML, SWML or SEML should not be prioritised over converting any of those 3 (for instance).

Doesn't that depend on how carbon intensive the 20% of electricity you would be saving by conversion is ? For example if grid electricity was 50% decarbonised, wouldn't the cut-off point for electrifying diesel fuelled routes be anything with less than a 1/10 of the traffic of the above mentioned lines?

On another matter, I wonder how that experimental battery powered EMU is doing ? This could be a much cheaper way of decarbonising secondary routes !

 

[HSTEd]

The capital cost of the conversion would also have to be weighed against simply using the money to buy a low carbon generating plant with a long life span - for example a tidal barrage - which owuld offset the electricity losses.

With govenrment capital charges being below inflation on inflation linked gilts a 120 year life barrage has effectively negligible capital repayment charges, and generating charges small enough to be similar in price to nuclear fuel.

Which means it is worth building a tidal barrage to throttle back a CANDU. Unlike wind turbines which are more expensive than running a nuclear reactor.

 

[edwin_m]

As opposed to spending that (ridiculously huge pile of) money on simply electrifying something that isn't electric yet.
It is amazing how much people want the 25kV to cannibalise the already electric railway.

Somehow I knew I'd be reading this from you when I posted that.

The topic of this thread is decarbonisation of traction supply of the railway. Whether you like it or not this is one way of doing so, and probably amongst the most effective.

My last word on the subject.

 

[takno]

The topic of this thread is decarbonisation of traction supply of the railway. Whether you like it or not this is one way of doing so, and probably amongst the most effective.

Only if you deliberately conflate energy use and carbon production. Electricity generation is already far less carbon intensive than burning diesel, and is becoming even less so. That being the case you should always convert diesel lines first, and by the time you've done those and get to the third rail you may find that electricity generation is so carbon-light that it isn't worth the trouble at all.

 

[swrailuser]

fat chance of decarbonisation as electrification will never come down here to the south west as this line just gets fixes (Dawlish) rather than proper upgrades and now about to be shafted with AT300 underpowered bi modes

 

[najaB]

Electricity generation is already far less carbon intensive than burning diesel, and is becoming even less so. That being the case you should always convert diesel lines first...

Surely that depends on traffic levels? Converting a heavily used third-rail line will have a greater net impact than electrifying a lightly used rural line - for example the BML vs the Far North Line.

 

[takno]

Surely that depends on traffic levels? Converting a heavily used third-rail line will have a greater net impact than electrifying a lightly used rural line - for example the BML vs the Far North Line.

If you eliminated carbon from electricity production completely through more extensive use of nuclear, or renewables then no, a 20% reduction in electricity use would have literally no benefit to decarbonization whatsoever. Given that you're never going to get to absolutely zero carbon, and in any case there is a carbon cost to building the electrification, then no it's not worth doing the Far North Line. Overall from a decarbonization point of view you'd certainly prioritise MML, Cross-country, Chiltern, the valley lines, all the trans-pennine routes and a bunch more before it starts being worth looking at even the busiest 3rd rail routes.

 

[HSTEd]

Far North might become more heavily trafficked in the future if the Arctic Ice recedes to the extent required for a summer time shipping route over the North Pole - as it projected by mid-century.

THen that proposal for a Scapa Flow port makes things more interesting.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

fat chance of decarbonisation as electrification will never come down here to the south west as this line just gets fixes (Dawlish) rather than proper upgrades and now about to be shafted with AT300 underpowered bi modes

I see this is your first post - welcome to the forum

 

[Flying Phil]

Out of interest, what would be the amount of electricity generated if a 1m wide strip of PV cells were laid between the rails countrywide? (Total Track Km minus say 15% for points, tunnels etc?) As the French are experimenting with a road made of PV cells the middle of a rail line would seem to be a lot easier and PV is getting cheaper/more efficient.
Additionally why could carriage roofs not have PV for Aircon use with lithium cells for storage/back up?

 

[mickulty]

Out of interest, what would be the amount of electricity generated if a 1m wide strip of PV cells were laid between the rails countrywide? (Total Track Km minus say 15% for points, tunnels etc?) As the French are experimenting with a road made of PV cells the middle of a rail line would seem to be a lot easier and PV is getting cheaper/more efficient.

Not nearly as much if the same cells were put in a field somewhere sunny, and with higher installation costs - as well as making maintenance of the track bed more complicated and adding extra equipment that would require a possession to maintain.

Additionally why could carriage roofs not have PV for Aircon use with lithium cells for storage/back up?

They could. However lithium battery production is not exactly kind to the environment and they present a fire risk so it'd be better to forget those and just fall back to the existing system of either a diesel generator or drawing from the grid. You also again have the question of whether the same PV cells would be better employed elsewhere - a sunny field would avoid a reduction in overhead luggage space, avoid extra maintenance for already stretched rolling stock, and be able to feed usefully into the grid at all times rather than sitting idle when the mild british weather indicates minimal heating or cooling.