Stock Fururology

[90019]

Secondly, how do you store the hydrogen? Hydrogen could be stored as gas at a very high pressure, but in a crash the hydrogen gas tank would explode. It could be stored as a liquid, but that would only be possible if the tank was kept at sub-zero temperatures, which would only be possible if there was an auxiliary power supply to power the cooling mechanism. Furthermore, if a train with a tank full of liquid hydrogen was kept stationary, then the hydrogen would evaporate, which means that plug sockets would have to be installed in carriage sidings, depots and station platforms, in order for the cooling mechanisms to be plugged in to prevent hydrogen from evaporating.

There is a way of doing it with a sort of sponge like structure IIRC, which means it doesn't explode, though I can't remember the details. However, it is currently very difficult to store.
With current hydrogen cars (BMW's H7 comes to mind) they have problems with the gas evaporating. I think they actually have to have vents in the car, so that it doesn't build up and explode, meaning that, if you leave it parked up for a while, when you come back it has almost no fuel, and if you leave it in a garage that isn't properly ventilated, when you go back to it, there's a chance of asphyxiation and death.

As previously mentioned, the other problem is creating it. The logical solution would be nuclear power plants to produce it.

Currently, it needs some work, but it does look like the best way forward if these problems can be sorted, which I guess is only a matter of time.

 

[LE Greys]

There is a way of doing it with a sort of sponge like structure IIRC, which means it doesn't explode, though I can't remember the details. However, it is currently very difficult to store.
With current hydrogen cars (BMW's H7 comes to mind) they have problems with the gas evaporating. I think they actually have to have vents in the car, so that it doesn't build up and explode, meaning that, if you leave it parked up for a while, when you come back it has almost no fuel, and if you leave it in a garage that isn't properly ventilated, when you go back to it, there's a chance of asphyxiation and death.

As previously mentioned, the other problem is creating it. The logical solution would be nuclear power plants to produce it.

Currently, it needs some work, but it does look like the best way forward if these problems can be sorted, which I guess is only a matter of time.

An idea someone had was to put wind turbines on top of worked-out gas platforms. They would electrolyse seawater and use the existing pipelines to bring the hydrogen gas ashore for bottling. You also get lots of oxygen as a waste product; some deuterium which you can use in fusion reactors; and lots of sodium, chlorine and other things, although I don't know what to do with them.

Stored hydrogen is actually a lot less dangerous than petrol, which forms into pools if it leaks, produces clouds of flammable heavier-than-air vapour, and has a lower point of ignition. Escaped hydrogen goes up, and would usually escape to the atmosphere very quickly because the molecules are very small and hard to contain. That's also why it tends to leak in the first place. Really, your fuel cell car needs some backup batteries to get to the nearest place to refuel, unless they can form a properly gas-tight seal around the storage cells.

 

[cyclebytrain]

Secondly, how do you store the hydrogen?.

I know a reasonable amount about Hydrogen fuel cells (or at least I'm meant to!) and I can tell you that storing Hydrogen as a hydride is currently being commercialised. This stores the Hydrogen at relatively low pressure (~3bar) and can be field recharged by bubbling Hydrogen gas into the canister upto 100 times, at which point you (currently) need to switch out the Hydride). That number is certain to go up (heck I remember when it was a single shot). So, it wouldn't surprise me to see someone try a prototype Hydrogen train in the next ten years or so.

 

[generalvegitable]

I wonder how long it will be until they "discover" that water vapour is a greenhouse gas as bad if not worse than CO2

 

[WatcherZero]

Actually the opposite, it causes global cooling and theyve proposed used it to counter CO2 emissions.

 

[generalvegitable]

are you sure? water vapour in the upper atmosphere it still causes reflection of long wave radiation causing the thermal energy in the atmosphere to be reflected back to the earth, in equal quantities CO2 is more efficient at the job but in the quantities in reality the water vapour is far better at it.

 

[cyclebytrain]

I wonder how long it will be until they "discover" that water vapour is a greenhouse gas as bad if not worse than CO2

Yes, but the lifetime of water vapour is (currently) believed to be much less than that of CO2/NOX/SOX/UHC

 

[TGV]

373's are not quite the same age as 91's - about 7 or 8 years younger, although I'm sure someone can wikipedia it and find the actual difference. I don't see why you'd retire 373's at the same time as requesting 91's carry on for another 10 years. Doesn't make sense.

373's cannot run through Newcastle at present without line alteration. They go out of gauge on the southern approach to the bridge just outside the station. They can make it round there (it is JUST within their capabilities), but it depends on nothing running on adjacent tracks.

Personally I see E* using the existing stock (with a mid-life refresh more than just new seat covers) to extend their life until about 2025 (and surely it's already time for a new livery!). Then they'll be replaced by the latest double-deck TGV/AGV or whatever is the current flavour of high speed train at the time. The linespeed will be upped on HS1 to 350km/h too. It and LGV Nord were built to that spec anyway with the tracks being slightly further apart than 300km/h standard LGV for 350km'h running.

As for domestic stock. I guess 91's/Mk4's will last until about 2020 when they'll be replaced by either another tilting option to save time north of Newcastle or by then we'll have a better idea of the domestic High Speed Lines and they may dictate what happends here.

Pendolinos will carry on in service on the WCML for many years to come. And in 30 years time, all the spotters and bobble-hatters will lament their passing and curse whatever plastic trash replaces them saying that "They're not the same - they don't have the character of the Pendolinos" - because history shows us that this happens every time a major rolling stock program replaces one that's been around a while. Happened with steam, happened with Deltics, happened with 87's and it's about to happen with HSTs in a few years time.

Units for regional and suburban use - I don't know but those pics posted on this thread look like glorified trams. These local lines will never be increased in terms of loading gauge, so will benefit from traditional but modernised multiple units I think.

 

[LE Greys]

Pendolinos will carry on in service on the WCML for many years to come. And in 30 years time, all the spotters and bobble-hatters will lament their passing and curse whatever plastic trash replaces them saying that "They're not the same - they don't have the character of the Pendolinos" - because history shows us that this happens every time a major rolling stock program replaces one that's been around a while. Happened with steam, happened with Deltics, happened with 87's and it's about to happen with HSTs in a few years time.

We all have our generation, notice how thirty-year-old music always gets revived. It's what middle-aged people listened to in their teens. I'm HST generation, and they'll always be the finest things BR ever built. Solid British engineering, fastest diesel in the world for ages and makes a wonderful noise. Still, I grew up with them!

I reckon Pendolinos have some future in semi-fast work on the WCML. HS2 might take a lot of the traffic, but something has to get people from Milton Keynes to Lichfield Trent Valley. If and when HS2 starts up, we will have Pendys on some of the 350 diagrams, and perhaps on Manchester-Glasgow if it ever gets electrified.

I always assumed that the 91s would go to East Anglia and the MML, but it looks as though they will carry on on the ECML for a lot longer than planned. With no imminent replacement, they might reach the 2030s. For perspective, the first Gresley A1 was introduced in 1921, and the last was withdrawn (as an A3) in 1963. Not quite sure about the dates, but the 91s may break that record.

 

[Ivo]

373's are not quite the same age as 91's - about 7 or 8 years younger, although I'm sure someone can wikipedia it and find the actual difference. I don't see why you'd retire 373's at the same time as requesting 91's carry on for another 10 years. Doesn't make sense.

According to Wikiverse the 373s are two to five years younger than 91s - '93 against '88 to '91.

 

[Dolive22]

My understanding is that water vapour is a greenhouse gas, but that water vapour doesn't hang around in the air for long as it's release doesn't actually change the equilibrium level, so it just rains slightly more until the level of water vapour is back to where it was before the release*. The difference from CO2 is that the CO2 doesn't have any large natural reservior to which it is returned by a cycle on a less than gealogical timescale. In theory CO2 does the same as gradually plant life florishes and more carbon is trapped as new oil, gas and coal, but it occurs on a very long timescale.

In a sense both people are right about water vapour, as clouds raise the albedo of the earth. They reflect light straight back before it can be turned in to heat, cooling the earth.

As to hydrogen, there were some horrendous accidents on the railway with gas oil being used to light carriages. The canisters or the pipes cracked, shattered or sheared and fuel spilt out, igniting from sparks, the lit lamps, the fire in the locomotive or a secondary fire lit by one of the above. It would be less of a problem now because a) the carriages are built to much higher standards, the passenger rolling stock standards were terrible back then and b) the carriages are no longer made of wood, but they could still be a very big fire.

*Technically it will only return to where it was before the release at infinity seconds after release, but in practice the rate at which the vapour is emitted pretty quickly is roughly equal to the rate at which it leaves, at a point where there is only a small change in the levl of water vapour in the atmosphere.

 

[90019]

You also have to take into account that the water that you're emitting from combustion of hydrogen was already in the system, whereas the carbon and things from fossil fuels have been stored out of the normal cycle. So, by digging up the coal, oil, etc. and releasing them, you're increasing the amount that's in our atmosphere (The actual increase caused by us is miniscule, but that's another argument altogether), whereas the emission of water vapour creates no actual increase in the amount of it because, as mentioned previously, of the equilibrium of the atmosphere, which will counteract it to get the balance back to what it was previously.

 

[LE Greys]

You also have to take into account that the water that you're emitting from combustion of hydrogen was already in the system, whereas the carbon and things from fossil fuels have been stored out of the normal cycle. So, by digging up the coal, oil, etc. and releasing them, you're increasing the amount that's in our atmosphere (The actual increase caused by us is miniscule, but that's another argument altogether), whereas the emission of water vapour creates no actual increase in the amount of it because, as mentioned previously, of the equilibrium of the atmosphere, which will counteract it to get the balance back to what it was previously.

At the risk of turning this into a climatology forum, the majority of the water used for hydrogen production would be taken from the sea, so emitting it into the atmosphere would very slightly increase the level of atmospheric water vapour. However, that is nothing to the vapour trails pumped out by jets at high-altitude. When all flying stopped after the September 11th attacks, peak daytime temperatures in the USA increased by 2F, and minimum night-time temperatures decreased by 1F. We therefore have a study. Still, aircraft water emissions are a lot higher up, and 10 times more than anything put out by hydrogen fuel cells.

 

[TrainBrain185]

I thought the main problem with the Fuel Cell buses was the cost - £2million each - though that will decrease as the technology starts mass production

Absolutely! However, 20 years+ and the rise in oil prices and natural decrease of worldwide oil supplies will see more of Fuel Cell technology come on stream for Transport.
Regards railways, one fundemental question is, will existing infrastructure be entirely OHL fed and infrastructure which is deemed not viable for OHL scrapped? I cannot see a future of diesel powered trains 20 years hence and one idea to propel trains without being under a wire on urban branch lines could be Fuel Cell.
It has to be remembered that original DMU technology was taken from the established underfloor engined Leyland bus of the early 50's. I think Rail will follow suit with the link I provide here from BC Transit, Vancouver in Canada.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZQhmn1cxQo&feature=related
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvP1nSEB-po

Further information........