Future power for trains

[Peter Sarf]

I suggest that alternatives to oil need considering. This is because oil is getting scarce and the latest theories suggest that the price of oil will go up steeply as the supply gets outstripped by demand. Demand is rising as countries like China and India use more and more energy. They have vast populations that are beginning to buy and use cars. The railways and the country need to be prepared for a steep rise in fuel costs (the current rises are minor and slow compared to what is expected in the future). I suggest that, in planning, we need to err on the side of higher oil costs.

Steam power has popped up in a few threads and it occurs to me that what we could consider is a non-diesel alternative of coal ?.

Obviously all the existing electric trains are actually steam powered courtesy of the power stations. The advantage of electrification is that the generation of the electricity can be done in large efficient power stations and the choice of energy source is disconnected from the trains.

For non-electric lines perhaps non-diesel IN a train means alternative fuel. One option would be to generate gas from coal (as the UK used to do) and use the gas as fuel for the existing engine in the train. I know its possible to convert petrol engines for cars to gas but I dont know if a large diesel engine is suitable.

I feel we should be ready for an urgent need to replace oil. So, ignoring the possibility that oil may not become unfashionable, how about any thoughts / alternatives assuming oil needs replacing please ?.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . Obviously all the existing electric trains are actually steam powered courtesy of the power stations.

Hmmm. I don't think so.

how about any thoughts / alternatives assuming oil needs replacing please ?.

We have a well established history of developing the designs of nuclear generating plants; there seem to be more wind turbines across the landscape every time I look; its no time since we completed that last North Sea gas pipeline across half of England; there are advanced trials & experiments to harness tidal energy; and there are many, many researchers working full time across the globe examining alternatives.
(Discussion of many of these, and others, are disscussed on here regularly and can be found in this forum ).

I don't perceive any resistance in principle to developing alternatives to oil based fuels, but as our oil-economy is so fundamental, pervasive and so highly mature, it makes good sense to continue examining efficiency improvements in oil distribution and combustion.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Hmmm. I don't think so.

We have a well established history of developing the designs of nuclear generating plants; there seem to be more wind turbines across the landscape every time I look; its no time since we completed that last North Sea gas pipeline across half of England; there are advanced trials & experiments to harness tidal energy; and there are many, many researchers working full time across the globe examining alternatives.
(Discussion of many of these, and others, are disscussed on here regularly and can be found in this forum ).

I don't perceive any resistance in principle to developing alternatives to oil based fuels, but as our oil-economy is so fundamental, pervasive and so highly mature, it makes good sense to continue examining efficiency improvements in oil distribution and combustion.

Correct me if I am wrong but most electricity is generated via steam from heat and using the steam to drive turbines. The fuel used to provide the heat to generate steam varies (Coal, oil, natural-gas and nuclear). Wind and tidal are small but growing alternatives that avoid converting heat via steam to motion.

My point was how can we power existing non-electric trains using an alternative to oil. If I only raise peoples awareness to the need to do this I will be happy.

Regarding your last paragraph I do feel we are very naive to believe that we can continue to squeeze more oil out of the planet in the face of growing demand. We would be lost without oil and the rest of the world is learning to depend on it as well.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Better than gasifying coal and using the gas (syngas) in a turbine would be to perform a Fischer Tropsch process, which further converts the syngas to high quality liquid, i.e. diesel. You can convert gas, coal or biomass/waste in this way (GTL, CTL, BTL). The latter can give carbon neutral diesel or jet fuel for economics not far from where diesel is now. This means no expensive modifications to the engines, in fact such fuel is cleaner and more efficient than fossil diesel and a diesel train would run better on synthetic diesel than fossil diesel!

The process dates back to the 1920s and the Germans used it to produce fuel in WW2, and the South Africans during Apartheid.

GTL fuel made in Qatar and Malaysia by Shell and others is already in fuels such as Optimax right now. BTL is a big further away but the technology exists and is being commercialised.

So the future just might be diesel...

 

[Nym]

Or Hydrogen Fuel Cells?

Or just keep it simple, Gas?

It's not possible to convert a disel to use propane, but...

It is possible to make a gas turbine a similar size to that of an equivilant diesel engine, the only problem is safely storing flamable gas. But the advantage of course with gas turbines, is they will run on pretty much anything that will burn. And on the likes of diesel electric systems it isn't that difficult to convert from Diesel Electric to Gas Turbine - Electric generators, or perhaps these new build IEP units could use Turbines instead of Diesels, it's definatly cleaner burning...

 

[starrymarkb]

Gas Turbines are very thirsty though - the French RTGs would burn though about 6tonnes per day!

 

[Nym]

Mount turbofans on the roof?

 

[N Levers]

Nuclear trains.

Just think they'll only need re-fueling every 25 years.

 

[Nym]

And would take 12 hours to start every morning, for the cost of development we could just electrify every yard of track and siding in the country and build nuclear power stations on the ground to power them...

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . Obviously all the existing electric trains are actually steam powered courtesy of the power stations.

Correct me if I am wrong but most electricity is generated via steam from heat and using the steam to drive turbines.

'all' No. 'most' Yes.
But lets not get fixated on the steam element - its merely a carrier of pressure between the fuel burner / reactor and the turbines. Other high pressure gasses or fluids are also used to transfer the energy, partiularly in some nuclear plants.

It would take a number of innovations to produce an on-board fuel-burning motor which is as reliable and as efficient as the diesel engine (I don't deny that if the same market pressure to improve diesels over the years had been applied to other engine types, then they too may by now have achieved comparable performance and acceptance).
But we are where we are, not starting with a clean sheet of paper; we have mature electric power networks, tankers carrying crude oil, and millions of diesel engines doing useful work every day. The biggest driver for change is/will surely be in the automotive industry, simply because theirs is the biggest market for power units, and so that is where small, incremental changes as well as the occasional radical shift are most likely to occur.
Of course, some of those manufacturers have been working on alternatives for years - perhaps the fuel cell, biofuels, battery vehicle or other system will become popular; and perhaps not.

But rail transport is not a large enough market to drive innovation. For this reason alone, I think we should look for innovation from both the automotive sector and the power generation sector - the latter is closer to a crisis of lack of supply than many realise and perhaps it will be mass consumer demand for electricity generation that necessitates innovation next. If so, that will surely favour rail electrification.

 

[jon0844]

Nuclear trains.

Just think they'll only need re-fueling every 25 years.

At the moment if someone asks on a train if someone has a spare bottle of water, I'll assume someone has been taken ill with heat exhaustion.

I'd certainly be worried if I heard that on a nuclear train!!

 

[starrymarkb]

I think Nuclear was looked at in the states and the weight of the lead lining and containment proved to be the undoing.

IIRC the nuclear flasks are about 50-70t!

 

[jon0844]

So lighter than a 185 then.

 

[bangor-toad]

And would take 12 hours to start every morning, for the cost of development we could just electrify every yard of track and siding in the country and build nuclear power stations on the ground to power them...

Dunno about start up times but there's no need to pay to develop these. Those costs are already paid for - all we've got to do is write the cheque and wait for delivery.

That's actually a serious comment!

The base work was done in 1956 by the Russians and 1957 by the Germans. I've got no details on the first Russian attempts but the German one was planned to be a 35m long loco, 185 tonnes developing 5916 hp. It's heart was a Babcock and Wilcox mini reactor. I'm pretty certain it was just a design and a prototype wasn't built.

As for the Russians, they put out a press release about thier train two months ago: Linky

Ah well, with the UK's views on MU's and loco's, I think it'll be a while until we see one of the Russian trains forming the 7:54 all stations to London Bridge

Jason

 

[Peter Sarf]

And would take 12 hours to start every morning, for the cost of development we could just electrify every yard of track and siding in the country and build nuclear power stations on the ground to power them...

Thats the way I see it. Most methods for generating electricity work better as static large efficient power station. As long as the losses in the electricity power distribution network (national grid) don't add up to too much then electric trains are the way to go. Add to that regenerative raking.

But assuming mass electrification is not coming soon what can we do with our existing self propelled trains. Thanks to various respondents for enlightening me/us with regards to some likely possibilities for adapting diesel engines. Saw another point that the automotive industry have more of an excuse to do research - sad in a way. But perhaps the worlds railways can club together as we are not in competition with each other - we are in competition with air and road (for fuel and customers).

 

[jopsuk]

I think Nuclear was looked at in the states and the weight of the lead lining and containment proved to be the undoing.

IIRC the nuclear flasks are about 50-70t!

The US and USSR developed reactors, with sufficient shielding, light enough for aircraft.

 

[Ivo]

Choosing nuclear power is not the answer. Why? Should something go wrong, it's not exactly easy to correct it (as of course the Japanese have recently found out the hard way), and there's no International Rescue in 2011...

 

[Sun Chariot]

At the moment if someone asks on a train if someone has a spare bottle of water, I'll assume someone has been taken ill with heat exhaustion.

I'd certainly be worried if I heard that on a nuclear train!!

Genius!

 

[jopsuk]

Choosing nuclear power is not the answer. Why? Should something go wrong, it's not exactly easy to correct it (as of course the Japanese have recently found out the hard way), and there's no International Rescue in 2011...

Oh, I'm not advocating mounting reactors on trains- just pointing out that small enough reactors are certainly feasible.

Also, not quite the same, but you are somewhat wrong

 

[Lampshade]

This is something I've thought about.

Why not have batteries (obv not a couple of AA) that can be charged by either regenerative braking or on OHLE (which can also power the train) backed up by a diesel generator for emergencies?

Also, not perpetual motion but surely the energy of the train moving along could drive a turbine or similar which could then supply the traction motors with electricity, helping the train move along and so generating more power and so on...

Also, how about solar power? Yes, we live in the UK so its a moot point but it could work somewhere like Australia, couldn't it?

 

[jopsuk]

This is something I've thought about.

Why not have batteries (obv not a couple of AA) that can be charged by either regenerative braking or on OHLE (which can also power the train) backed up by a diesel generator for emergencies?

Batteries are heavy. I'm not sure how long, or how fast, the London Underground maintainence battery electric locos can operate away from powered rails, but I'd bet it is neither far nor fast

Also, not perpetual motion but surely the energy of the train moving along could drive a turbine or similar which could then supply the traction motors with electricity, helping the train move along and so generating more power and so on...

no, you are proposing perpetual motion. Very much so. Can't work. The energy to power the turbine isn't there.

Also, how about solar power? Yes, we live in the UK so its a moot point but it could work somewhere like Australia, couldn't it?

By having a super lightweight, very flat car capable of holding one person, it's possible to drive across the Australian dessert. Slowly. The available surface area to weight ratio is much, much worse for a train.

 

[LexyBoy]

This is something I've thought about.

Why not have batteries (obv not a couple of AA) that can be charged by either regenerative braking or on OHLE (which can also power the train) backed up by a diesel generator for emergencies?

Also, not perpetual motion but surely the energy of the train moving along could drive a turbine or similar which could then supply the traction motors with electricity, helping the train move along and so generating more power and so on...

Also, how about solar power? Yes, we live in the UK so its a moot point but it could work somewhere like Australia, couldn't it?

Where to start?!

Batteries- if it's for emergencies when there's an OHL failure, why have the diesel as well? If it's to save the energy from regen, ok, but it's easier to put it back into the wires for other trains. Hitachi did prototype an HST powercar with such batteries- i.e. Hybrid technology- since it makes more sense in a self powered vehicle.

Turbines- you'd get less power from them than you'd use in the increased drag they cause. They could be used in braking, in theory, but why bother when regenerative braking is so much better?

Solar- would only give a tiny amount of power, which might be outweighed by the weight and complication added. Might work to power auxiliary circuits though.

 

[OxtedL]

Before anyone goes any further with these interesting ideas, remember conservation of energy!

If you (say) convert the kinetic energy of the train into chemical energy of the battery, you can't get any more kinetic energy back out of the battery than you have put in, and in fact you get far far less because of the incredible inefficiencies of the processes, and things like air resistance and friction slowing the train down.

On this principle, these turbines would definitely not work - they are "perpetual motion" as already mentioned, and you cannot get energy from the kinetic energy of the train without removing some of the kinetic energy itself, slowing the train down and making the whole thing pointless (and wasteful, because it is again inefficient).

I knew there was a reason I learnt that stuff .

 

[Kneedown]

Future power for trains?
Simple, overhead electric. Technology is there and proven, all emissions (if any thanks to nuclear power) are localised, trains are lighter and more economical to run as they are lighter and require less costly maintenance, and they perform better as well.
Finally, for what it will cost to develop and perfect fantasy fuels you could probably electrify all the UK's remaining unelectrified lines and provide the rolling stock to run on them.
Job done.

 

[GB]

Correct me if I am wrong but most electricity is generated via steam from heat and using the steam to drive turbines. The fuel used to provide the heat to generate steam varies (Coal, oil, natural-gas and nuclear). Wind and tidal are small but growing alternatives that avoid converting heat via steam to motion.

My point was how can we power existing non-electric trains using an alternative to oil. If I only raise peoples awareness to the need to do this I will be happy.

Regarding your last paragraph I do feel we are very naive to believe that we can continue to squeeze more oil out of the planet in the face of growing demand. We would be lost without oil and the rest of the world is learning to depend on it as well.

It doesn't matter how the electricity is generated, the fact is that it is electricity going into the motors on a train which in turn powers it.

Its like saying a steam train is sun/dead plant powered through the coal it uses.

 

[Peter Sarf]

It doesn't matter how the electricity is generated, the fact is that it is electricity going into the motors on a train which in turn powers it.

Its like saying a steam train is sun/dead plant powered through the coal it uses.

Electricity inevitably gets into the power train equation and the best way to do it is with large purpose built power stations and electric trains. But I also want to explore the options of alternative fuels for use within the train. this has the advantage of no transmission costs and less set up cost (maybe) than electrifying lesser used lines.

Youre right about the the origin of coal. Dead plants crushed that were grown over millions of years. Oil was similar for aninmals (plankton ?). And without the sun it would not have been possible. The simple problem is that we are using these fuels up a lot faster than they were created - i.e. they are not sustainable. We are also polluting the planet in the process.

Some thoughts. We have to use sustainable fuel sooner ot later. That really means using the suns energy as it arrives day by day or thereabouts. For example wind power is from pressure changes in our atmosphere caused by heat from the sun. Hydro electric would not work if the sun did not vapourise water from the sea (and lakes) get it blown inland and uphill then drop it as rain in some high up plain leading to a convenient valley.

The only power that I cannot see is connected to the sun is Tidal power which is derived from the moon's gravitational pull as earth spins and the moon orbits. Nuclear power is another exception and don't be scared of it - after all the sun is a nuclear reactor anyway !. Both these work best if they are not part of the train.

If we cannot make enough power for all our needs from the sun then perhaps we need to reduce our demand . One way is to do this is to reduce how much we each use but perhaps there are just too many of us on the planet ?. Me ? I am all right - its the rest of you that are the problem .

 

[LexyBoy]

this has the advantage of no transmission costs and less set up cost (maybe) than electrifying lesser used lines.

'Transmission costs' are still present - in this case as the cost (economic and wasted energy) of producing your fuel in a form which can be used on-train, and carting it around with you on the train.

 

[Mystic Force]

Here in the US it almost exclusively diesel. At least here large scale electrification is not going to happen any time soon. So an alternative self powered option would likely be developed here if it was going to happen. Then when it is, you can have it back home.

 

[Nym]

But still, for the amount it would cost to develop somthing for MU traction in the UK (The US is mainly locomotive hauled IIRC), it would be cheaper to electrify almost every single line with OHL or 3rd Rail

 

[strange6]

A sewage train that generates it's power by the microbial degregation of smelly brown stuff. Failing that technology, how about electricity supplied by overhead lines and pantographs?