Battery power and bi-mode vs electrification

[Lloyds siding]

Which brings me back to an earlier point, get on with electrification of the main routes, and leave the remote rural routes as they are using proven diesel technology, and spend the time and effort on other areas of the economy that contribute far higher emissions. If rail is 1.6% of all emissions then I would guess that the rural routes that will probably never be electrified across the UK contribute less than 10% of that 1.6% i.e. 0.16%, and eliminating that is pointless.

This is the most pertinent point to this discussion. The contribution from rural lines is essentially trivial. putting big efforts into 'solving' emissions from minor rural lines is misplaced.
My green friends talk about 'Every little helps', to which I respond: 'If everyone in the world did a little, what difference would it make?' The answer they acknowledge is, at best, a little. We need to be tackling the big problems now...and making big changes.
If new electric vehicles continue to increase their proportion of sales, then we should soon see a reduction in emissions from the road transport sector (current fuel prices are certainly helping reduce emissions). Big changes are needed if we are to make a difference.
We also need to be more efficient in heating our houses, notably, improving insulation...this really needs a big push, with actions following the words of politicians (it's been half-hearted up to now).
My other hobby horse is ensuring that our peat bogs and other organic rich sediments (essentially saltmarshes) do not deteriorate further. The government appear to be taking this seriously judging by the plethora of recent job adverts, however action plans, as always, need to be translated into action.

 

[Doomotron]

I do wonder if biodiesel is the way forward with these lesser used lines. Whilst biodiesel is very questionable in terms of actual green-ness, it's something that is often touted by politicians as a zero-emission fuel (which, as I've said, is very questionable at best) but as a result it's something that's politically on the table.

I'm not certain about biodiesel but synthetic fuel, currently being developed by Porsche and BP and possibly others, will be effectively carbon-neutral once complete.*

*Sort of. Synthetic fuel will likely produce greenhouse gases when burnt, but are designed to only output the same amount of greenhouse gases required to create it. I am not aware of synthetic fuel being used for vehicles larger than cars or trucks, but for those it is actually my preferred option as it means every vehicle with a combustion engine will continue to work, instead of the current 'electric only' route which will render every non-electric car ever built worthless junk.

 

[tomuk]

I am not aware of synthetic fuel being used for vehicles larger than cars or trucks,

The MTU engines in the CAF 19x are basically Mercedes truck engines. The engines in older DMUs are again basically truck engines.

 

[paul1609]

The MTU engines in the CAF 19x are basically Mercedes truck engines. The engines in older DMUs are again basically truck engines.

At the K&ESR we've been using biodiesel (premium hvo) across our fleet for nearly a year now without issues. Its in here amongst the adverts somewhere! https://news.railbusinessdaily.com/kent-east-sussex-railway-is-going-green/

 

[Wyrleybart]

No hope given how long its taking them to get to Church Fenton Bath or Stalybridge Oxford currently.

Corrected for you Nicholas - assuming there is still eventually an intention to hang OLE. AIUI Filton-Bristol is pending the new station layout.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not certain about biodiesel but synthetic fuel, currently being developed by Porsche and BP and possibly others, will be effectively carbon-neutral once complete.*

Question is whether it's affordable - that's a similar issue as hydrogen.

Of course there's more to emissions than carbon - NOx and particulates are also relevant, and high spec exhaust scrubbing kit is expensive (but does exist, e.g. it's fitted to the Network Rail MPVs for use in the Merseyrail tunnels with passengers present).

 

[mike57]

The contribution from rural lines is essentially trivial. putting big efforts into 'solving' emissions from minor rural lines is misplaced.
My green friends talk about 'Every little helps', to which I respond: 'If everyone in the world did a little, what difference would it make?' The answer they acknowledge is, at best, a little. We need to be tackling the big problems now...and making big changes.

I think a better way of presenting this information from a political point of view would be to have annual league tables of CO2 emissions from various sources, e.g. Private road transport, public road transport, road freight, railways, power generation, chemical industry and manufacturing, with the major categories further broken down if appropriate. This would then concentrate minds and efforts on the biggest contributers, as obviously halving the biggest contributer is going to make much more difference than halving something that is near the bottom of the table.

 

[InTheEastMids]

I think a better way of presenting this information from a political point of view would be to have annual league tables of CO2 emissions from various sources, e.g. Private road transport, public road transport, road freight, railways, power generation, chemical industry and manufacturing, with the major categories further broken down if appropriate. This would then concentrate minds and efforts on the biggest contributers, as obviously halving the biggest contributer is going to make much more difference than halving something that is near the bottom of the table.

Yes, but halving the biggest contributer is probably a lot more expensive. So just looking very narrowly from the perspective of achieving net zero, the investment per tonne of CO2 emissions avoided is a key part of how to compare different sectors. There is probably a league table somewhere in HMT, allowing costs to be compared across very different interventions. I suspect rail electrification isn't happening more quickly because it's currently not seen as a particularly cost-effective investment in Net Zero by government, compared to alternatives. Obviously a similar logic applies in the CO2 element of comparing various battery options with conventional electrification.

Obviously, there's loads of other stuff to consider when it comes to actual policy-making & investing - i.e. all the other costs and benefits, but I think if we want to talk about all that, it's a topic for another thread.

 

[Lloyds siding]

I think a better way of presenting this information from a political point of view would be to have annual league tables of CO2 emissions from various sources, e.g. Private road transport, public road transport, road freight, railways, power generation, chemical industry and manufacturing, with the major categories further broken down if appropriate. This would then concentrate minds and efforts on the biggest contributers, as obviously halving the biggest contributer is going to make much more difference than halving something that is near the bottom of the table.

You mean something like this: https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...nhouse-gas-emissions-national-statistics-2021
and https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...est-of-united-kingdom-energy-statistics-dukes

It isn't easy to dig down to detailed stats...and they may not be available. Many of these figure are really guestimates.

 

[Pete_uk]

Could you use old cooking oil?

 

[Lloyds siding]

Could you use old cooking oil?

If you filter it and 'esterify' it, yes

 

[tomuk]

Question is whether it's affordable - that's a similar issue as hydrogen.

Of course there's more to emissions than carbon - NOx and particulates are also relevant, and high spec exhaust scrubbing kit is expensive (but does exist, e.g. it's fitted to the Network Rail MPVs for use in the Merseyrail tunnels with passengers present).

You don't need expensive scrubbing equipment a Euro 6 engine with AdBlue and a particulate filter produces considerably less NOx and PM than earlier engines. (97% less PM than Euro 1)

 

[pc3087L]

They have been in regular passenger service in this country for nearly three years!

BEMUs? In the UK? Apols if I misunderstood but genuine question where? I can only think of Midland Metro extension using battery trams and that hasn’t exactly worked well in the last year (albeit nothing to do with battery capability)

 

[DerekC]

I think the main problem with Hydrogen technology is that it is still relatively unproven in large scale applications, and I suspect there could be some problems with it, thats not to say it shouldn't be developed, but it doesn't look mature enough for large scale deployment.

The main problem with hydrogen is that it's an inefficient use of primary energy because you lose so much in electrolysis, compression etc. VW produced a very good slide comparing battery and hydrogen as ways of carrying energy around, which I will attempt to post - admittedly for a car, but the figures for a train won't be very different.

 

[The Ham]

The main problem with hydrogen is that it's an inefficient use of primary energy because you lose so much in electrolysis, compression etc. VW produced a very good slide comparing battery and hydrogen as ways of carrying energy around, which I will attempt to post - admittedly for a car, but the figures for a train won't be very different.

View attachment 118379

Indeed, it's often better to make hydrogen to then directly convert back to electricity to power a battery car then use the hydrogen in the car.

Short term this could be the way that the Scottish Islands work; generate power, convert to Hydrogen, ship to mainland, convert back to electricity to feed back into the grid. Longer term, although more costly cables should be there way to go.

Hydrogen isn't something that we should be looking to increase our use untill any increases are smaller than the increase in green hydrogen (i.e. for every 10 units of green hydrogen produced it reduces brown hydrogen production by 3 units, although early increases could be smaller, say 9:1 as time goes by it should ramp up possibly even to even 3:7)

As we would need a grid generation comparable to that of the whole of the EU to replace all the worldwide current hydrogen use, so a significant cause of greenhouse gases.

 

[Bald Rick]

BEMUs? In the UK? Apols if I misunderstood but genuine question where? I can only think of Midland Metro extension using battery trams and that hasn’t exactly worked well in the last year (albeit nothing to do with battery capability)

Yes Midland Metro.

And we will have Merseyrsil and TfW using them in the next few months too.

 

[mike57]

It isn't easy to dig down to detailed stats...and they may not be available. Many of these figure are really guestimates.

Yes but with a much simpler presentation, a league table, that would then highlight the big contributions and raise awareness. If as I suspect rail would be well down the list then it would remove some of the momentum behind the 'eliminate diesel at all costs' brigade.

Prioritise electrification, but really given the current state of technology and given the miniscule contribution the remote rural lines make to emissions there are other places where the time and money could be better spent, as I suspect the cost of a hydrogen powered train would be considerably more than its diesel equivalent and post #104 makes the point about efficency and thats before you get to safety issues with hydrogen.

 

[zwk500]

Converted bemus would also be suboptimal for charging on the move as the total traction/ recharging power is limited by the original spec of the ac transformer and cabling or collection shoes and train bus in the case of dc. On the modelling GTR did for replacing the 171s. South Croydon to Hurst Green existing electrification couldn't support the existing Uckfield trains being straight electric let alone bemus.
On Marshlink replacement the low charge rate available on Hampden Park to Brightons electrification meant that to cover the Ore to Ashford Gap the trains had to do a Brighton to Ashford cycle followed by a Brighton to Seaford cycle, this meant that the number of BEMU diagrams required to cover the 5 171 diagrams was huge.

South Croydon to Hurst Green might not, but London Bridge to Hurst Green gives far more room, especially with some rather simple geofencing and a good power management system.

it will be even more interesting if TfW have the stomach to close the line, and if they do, how they go about doing it.

I wouldn't be surprised if they simply wait for a good/bad (depends on your POV) spring and then look at the bill to put it all back in place.

 

[Bald Rick]

South Croydon to Hurst Green existing electrification couldn't support the existing Uckfield trains being straight electric let alone bemus.

I’m not sure that GTR did power supply modelling - it’s quite a specialised task and NR have the models. My understanding is that it would be tight, with a full Pre-covid peak service of 12 cars going to E Grinstead and Uckfield. But certainly not off peak, nor post covid

 

[paul1609]

I’m not sure that GTR did power supply modelling - it’s quite a specialised task and NR have the models. My understanding is that it would be tight, with a full Pre-covid peak service of 12 cars going to E Grinstead and Uckfield. But certainly not off peak, nor post covid

Im sure you are in a better position than me to comment but an informed source at GTR suggests that at one time NR had said that the the converted trains would have to run on battery power between South Croydon and Uckfield and back which effectively killed the project. Marshlink was effectively killed by the numbers of units that would need to be converted. They seemed to think it was put in to a hiatus until the report on dc extension was published. Obviously the situation is different following covid. Has a decision actually been made on what Thameslink trains will run to East Grinstead in the future?