Future power for trains

[Nym]

We'd need to encourage local MPs to talk more for these sewage powered trains...

 

[Royston Vasey]

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

Electrifying the lines is only the start of it. Replacing trains is the real big expense. We have 47s still working that are 50 years old, the 57s may last decades more. Hundreds of Class 66s are working, thousands of diesel DMU vehicles. Those 66s may be expected to work beyond 2050, we will still need diesel. Any feasible increase in diesel price won't get close to exceeding the cost of replacing those vehicles. The rail industry can piggyback on advances in diesel replacement technologies for the big driver, the automotive industry. In fact a Virgin Voyager has been run on 1st generation biodiesel, the royal 67s have been running on biofuels for a while. The auto industry will demand green diesel and the rail industry will benefit.

Because of the huge pool of diesel engines extant, and their long lifetime (not so much cars but non road and marine machinery), increases in diesel price will be absorbed somehow because the alternative is electrifying infrastructure AND buying a new power source, in this case scrapping hundreds of serviceable 66s and replacing them with electric locos. It would need a massive increase in diesel price to justify this!

Then because the car fleet is replaced more often than non-road vehicles like trains, they will eventually switch to alternative powertrains and fuels, and it is feasible that when that has occurred, the diesel demand and therefore price will stabilise or fall. I firmly believe we will still have diesel trains far beyond 2050, possibly some to 2100.

Hydrogen and batteries are all very well, but nothing can beat the intensified source of energy that is a liquid hydrocarbon! The energy density of diesel makes it unbeatable as an on board source of energy for an engine. Hydrogen is appalling on that score, it needs to be highly pressurised to achieve that, and in doing so it becomes extremely hazardous!


Incidentally my qualifications for these statements are a career including spells working as a chemist or market analyst in the petrochemical industry, the automotive industry, and now the biofuels industry. I have made a career of studying these exact issues!

 

[strange6]

We'd need to encourage local MPs to talk more for these sewage powered trains...

Fuel would be plentiful if all trains refuelled at Westminster. A single tankful could last the year.

 

[krus_aragon]

Fuel would be plentiful if all trains refuelled at Westminster. A single tankful could last the year.

You could use a heat (hot air) engine for the hotel power as well!

 

[TGV]

Future power for trains? I'm gonna go out on a limb here, go crazy and suggest...

.... wait for it.....

Electricity. Say, about 25kV, 50Hz AC maybe?

I think we can work on and argue about the power supply at one end of that system, and how well the vehicles use it at the other end for a LONG time before we feel the need to come up with anything more revolutionary in the middle.

I'm just glad nobody has said Maglev yet.

 

[ChrisCooper]

Freight is always going to have the problem that overhead electrification will not do for most freight terminals. Notice how there is a gradual slide from electric to diesel in terms of freight, and that despite masses of 66s delivered in recent years, plus the 70s, the last electric freight locos were the 92s, and they were intended for a specific purpose (Channel Tunnel freight and Passenger work). It's only Freightliner that makes serious use of electric hauled freight for their Intermodal work. Even they have to switch to diesel power at the terminals, you can't be lifting containers off wagons under 25kV wires. Any kind of bulk solids don't work with overhead as you can't load from above if the wires are in the way. At least fuel tankers shouldn't be a problem as by this time there will be little fuel to transport.

The only way it could be done would be to have either energy storage (batteries, flywheels) or auxilliary engines. Then again it's nothing new, the SR have had similar systems on their locos for years. 71s used energy storate flywheels to work away from the power, 73s and 74s small diesel engines. Making an electric loco dual mode would be as simple as putting something like a Cummins QSK19 somewhere. Modern electric locos are not exactly lacking in space and for a freight loco the extra weight would just save on other ballast being used.

 

[OxtedL]

I just remembered this. Obviously a little difficult to run trains on, and restricted to India currently, but hey!

...So lets run trains on pressurised air. All you need is a re-compressor at each terminus . Could only really be considered for Stourbridge type operations though.

 

[Nym]

Well, for locomotives, Gas turbines aren't out of the question, the're already developed for marine applications, the problem comes for MU traction, at the moment it's only DC/AC Pickup and Diesel that makes any sense.

The likes of a Cummins QSK19F could quite easilly be converted to run off of biomass though, and wouldn't be that hard to run it on raw rape seed oil, with no treatment needed, (it would need pre-heaters and vapourisers fitting).

The diesel engine would need to start up on treated rape seed oil (reduced viscosity) or mineral diesel, when warm, the engine heat can be used to vapourise rape seed oil to the correct viscosity, and is much less complicated than treating all of it.

Best part of course is that this can be fitted during normal refitting of the units.

Fit a 2nd fuel tank for the 'Warm up/Warm down' fuel (normal diesel or treated bio-fuel)
Fit a head exchanger within the cooling system to vapourise the rape seed oil
Fit some t peice junctions and a controller set into the cab to switch between the two, or simplu plumb it into the startup/shutdown buttons.

The main problem comes with having to fuels to put on the units, rather than just one. And any rubberised fuel hoses would need replacing with polymer based hoses, but after the conversion, normal diesel would only be needed for starting and stopping the engines.

And no, I don't mean biodiesel that is as expensive as normal diesel because of all the treatment it needs, I mean, the oil that you harvest, put in barrels and put into deep fryers. It would also be possible to use used oil, but that might mean setting up a rather large 'rape seed oil recycling' company that will remove it from takeaways etc, filter it, and sell it onto TOCs.

 

[HST Power]

I'm just glad nobody has said Maglev yet.

I think they tried it in Japan but it's seriously expensive.

 

[j0hn0]

I think they tried it in Japan but it's seriously expensive.

Google vancouver skytrain.

Its not maglev per se, but it uses the same technology to propel wheeled trains on tracks. I asked this question to alstom a couple of years ago and they believe that the same could be made to work on classic networks, with some retro fitting of course.

Of course no one in england would ever dare to suggest such a radical proposal because most of our engineers are now foreign owned.

I, alstom and some other people think that this is possible, but as with all bright ideas in this country, you need political will to force anything through

 

[OxtedL]

Maglev could be seriously fast, but costs something like double high-speed rail, is relatively unproven, has two main (incompatible) market leaders, one of whom would gain a monopoly, and is not compatible with conventional rail networks/systems. So you have to build every time you want to get somewhere

Other than that, the politicians are all up for it. "Taxpayers" would love it.

 

[jopsuk]

Its not maglev per se, but it uses the same technology to propel wheeled trains on tracks. I asked this question to alstom a couple of years ago and they believe that the same could be made to work on classic networks, with some retro fitting of course.

So, install linear acceleration and wind up with a third, utterly incompatible, electrification system. Smart move!

 

[jopsuk]

I do understand how skytrain works. That system is fine for an isolated network. It's also perhaps notable that newest line of the network (and they are isolated from each other) doesn't use linear induction.
By "incompatible" I mean that if you wanted a train to run on both linear induction and either AC or DC, it would need a whole separate traction system- with no conventional motors, a neat "dual voltage" solution would not be possible. As we already have extensive OHL and 3rd rail networks, it would seem lunacy to add a third electrified network. Fine, if building an isolated metro system, or perhaps at a push replacing the electrification of an isolated Underground line, but my "idea" would be to extend the existing electrification.

Possibly also worth pointing out that linear acceleration doesn't solve any issues with regards traction supply distribution.

 

[j0hn0]

Cheers, thanks for explaining

I guess that power consumption would be different then? Does a linear system use more or less than conventional propulsion systems?

Also would there be less wear on the track and motors if the train was propelled in a linear way? Would regenerative braking also counteract this?

You might not know the answers to this but the way we currently propel trains is really quite archaic and i believe we are reaching the limits of what is efficiently possible.

 

[jopsuk]

One of the bigger advantages of linear systems is no loss of traction/braking in icy/leaf fall conditions, though emergency braking (which is conventional) would still be compromised.
I've no idea about efficiency.

I too find it a bit odd that in a system where the low friction between wheel and surface is one of things that makes it so efficient that what friction there is is relied upon for starting and stopping.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

Thing to remember is that we actually have enough oil supply to last for years, 50-100 by many estimates, factoring in discoveries not yet made (Arctic Ocean??). Yes, the new discoveries may be slowing down but global reserves remain huge. The limit is not supply but is actually CO2 emissions, ie. oil use will need to be curbed (read: made much more expensive) to keep global CO2 emissions below the necessary caps.

So the strategy for rail should be: widespread electrification (perhaps 80% of the network, bearing in mind that more electrification becomes economic as oil prices rise), biodiesel (not brilliant in carbon terms, but getting better over time) and diesel synfuel synthesised from coal (as per other posts).

The issue to watch though is that the cost of fuel, both for road and rail, will have to rise substantially to cover all this. Because fuel is a higher proportion of road cost (c. 40%) compared to 10% for UK railways, I reckon that this will actually lead to a far amount of mode shift to rail over time,ie. we'll need some more capacity, particularly on mainlines.

 

[Nym]

So the strategy for rail should be: widespread electrification (perhaps 80% of the network, bearing in mind that more electrification becomes economic as oil prices rise), biodiesel (not brilliant in carbon terms, but getting better over time) and diesel synfuel synthesised from coal (as per other posts).

Bio-Diesel "Not brilliant in carbon terms"

Could I mention that SVO (Straight Vegtable Oil) bio diesel is zero carbon emissions (by balance), I hate the term carbon emissions because there are much more dangerous things coming out the exhausts of trains.

MVO Bio Diesel is Modivied veg oil and is very near carbon nutral, it is SVO that has been treated to be much less viscous, but as I posted up avove this one, SVO can be used in modified diesel engines, and isn't too difficult to grow. All it would require would be a 2nd fuel tank fitting with either MVO or Diesel in, and a vapouriser to riase the temprature of the SVO (now in the main tank) up to 75C where it would vapourise the same as normal diesel.

This can be fitted to anything that runs on diesel with non-organic fuel lines (SVO Eats through rubber)

 

[ChrisCooper]

Bio-Diesel "Not brilliant in carbon terms"

Could I mention that SVO (Straight Vegtable Oil) bio diesel is zero carbon emissions (by balance), I hate the term carbon emissions because there are much more dangerous things coming out the exhausts of trains.

One of the big problems with diesel exhaust is the particulates. Ironically it's not the clag thats the problem, anything big enough to see is not going to be in the air for long and will be trapped quite nicely by the bodies pretty good filtration systems (when you blow your nose and it's black from soot it's good because that's not got into your lungs). The big problem is what you don't see, the smaller particles such as PM-10s which are less than 10µm (that's micro-meters which are millionths of meters, smaller than most cells and around the size of bacteria). Being small not only do they get through the bodies filtration but they are also harder to deal with by mechanical filtration. The smaller they are the more dangerous they are, but they are also harder to deal with. Particles less than 2.5µm can get into the deepest parts of the lungs and can even enter the tissues or blood supply, and can cause damage to arteries.

That said these particles are not just from exhausts. Brake dust is another big source of automotive PM10s, infact some studies have shown that dynamic braking can have a big impact on overall particle emisions, even on vehicles with internal combustion engines. Oviously electrics help in that respect too as nearly all have rheostatic or regenerative brakes, but fitting dynamic brakes on diesel would help too (even more so if they could be energy harvesting, either storing energy for later traction or using energy for heating or auxiliaries). Electrics aren't perfect though, the carbon strips on pantographs give off particulates too (look on the roof of something like a Pendolino near the pantograph and see how black it is).

 

[LE Greys]

Future power for trains? I'm gonna go out on a limb here, go crazy and suggest...

.... wait for it.....

Electricity. Say, about 25kV, 50Hz AC maybe?

I think we can work on and argue about the power supply at one end of that system, and how well the vehicles use it at the other end for a LONG time before we feel the need to come up with anything more revolutionary in the middle.

I'm just glad nobody has said Maglev yet.

Well, yes, but generated by what? I hope that increased fossil fuel generation is out of the question. If we develop the renewables sector, that could provide up to say 25% (not an exact figure) but what about the rest? The ideal answer would be nuclear fusion, which releases very little radiation, has a virtually-inexhaustible fuel supply (Deuterium from seawater) and produces a tiny quantity of Helium as waste. It is also immune from the problems experienced at Fukushima, a complete loss of containment (even worse) will simply cause the reaction to dissipate rather than anything dangerous. We have workable fusion reactors now, but it takes more energy to start the reaction than the reactors could ever produce. Once that issue is solved, then commercial fusion might be possible.

For now, nuclear fission seems like a good option, using modern reactor designs (Sizewell B would be immune from a Fukushima-type accident unless there was a complete loss of coolant from the reactor all at once). However, politically it is very difficult to get going. That does not seem very fair to me, since coal is much more dangerous and environmentally damaging even without the Carbon problem, but that is political reality. Power from sewage (biogas from fermentation) is a good idea. Otherwise, just go for more efficiency. We are perhaps fortunate that the idea I once saw in an old Eagle comic diagram - a nuclear loco with a reactor on-board generating steam for the cylinders - never came to pass. Imagine that in a crash.

In a real crisis, new-build steam (something Leader-like or a modern Garratt burning pulverised fuel) might make sense. However, that would have to be a stopgap measure (like diesel was supposed to be). At sea, it just might be possible to reintroduce sailing ships, and air travel would stop completely. However, I have to agree that electrification (perhaps needing to be 3rd rail in some freight terminals) would be the ideal way forward.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Re Le Greys comments.

I doubt if third rail is a straight forward option in yards because until the 60s/70s yards on the southern had overhead lines (still 750V DC I assume) so as to avoid yard staff being electrocuted by the third rail. The class 71 electric locos had a pantograph for this purpose but also a flywheel to store/re-use power. The 73s had a small (500HP ?) diesel engine for negotiating yards etc. The 74s were converted from 71s and had a rather furious sounding diesel engine (600HP ?) and I think their purpose was to take the Waterloo to Southampton docks boat trains down into the non-electrified docks. Have to say this to me is the only good purpose for a bi-mode. They should only have enough non-electric power to be able to negotiate short unelectrified sections (or emergencies). Not do 100 mile stints at full speed.

Overhead electrification seems the way forward and does give the freedom to choose more efficienly how the electricity is generated. Electrification can be justified for the more intensively used lines which does lead to lesser lines receiving hand me downs but in the grand schemem of things at least progress is being made for the UK as a whole. Electrify and cascade.

 

[HST Power]

Re Le Greys comments.

You can quote him.

 

[LE Greys]

Re Le Greys comments.

I doubt if third rail is a straight forward option in yards because until the 60s/70s yards on the southern had overhead lines (still 750V DC I assume) so as to avoid yard staff being electrocuted by the third rail. The class 71 electric locos had a pantograph for this purpose but also a flywheel to store/re-use power. The 73s had a small (500HP ?) diesel engine for negotiating yards etc. The 74s were converted from 71s and had a rather furious sounding diesel engine (600HP ?) and I think their purpose was to take the Waterloo to Southampton docks boat trains down into the non-electrified docks. Have to say this to me is the only good purpose for a bi-mode. They should only have enough non-electric power to be able to negotiate short unelectrified sections (or emergencies). Not do 100 mile stints at full speed.

Overhead electrification seems the way forward and does give the freedom to choose more efficienly how the electricity is generated. Electrification can be justified for the more intensively used lines which does lead to lesser lines receiving hand me downs but in the grand schemem of things at least progress is being made for the UK as a whole. Electrify and cascade.

I think the problem is that some wagons load/unload from the top. Really, the obvious answer is to have a shunter, be it battery, diesel or some other power source. If that does not work, then an electro-diesel would indeed make sense (why do we have 73s after all?). If we do have a straight-electric loco, if it is dual-system (most likely with British freight) then it's a case of choosing the system that fits best. Overhead wires are fine unless you want to load from the top. Third rail works (especially if the rails are boarded-in) provided there is a low risk of someone stepping on one. Another one I have seen is to have heavy-duty cables and literally plug the loco into a mains supply, which is used in some EMU sidings if the conductor rails are isolated. On the whole though, I would prefer to see a new class of diesel shunter, simpler all round.