What will be in the NR/DfT document about decarbonization

[GRALISTAIR]

I was inspired by this. A conference and a recommendation of NR means it needs to be in speculative ideas but might it actually happen at long last?

Mods - I really thought it deserved its own thread and I could not see elsewhere.

Noel Dolphin on Twitter

“They are recommending to DfT that electrification increases from 40% of the UK rail network to 80%. That is roughly 11,000 single track KM of electrification to be delivered in next 30 years (2/3).”

twitter.com

Basically saying to go from 40% electrified network to 80% if we want to decarbonize. NR on the front foot and not the back foot. Very encouraging indeed.
Battery and Hydrogen limited use especially for freight.

 

[Bald Rick]

Read the latest Modern Railways. It’s all in there.

 

[edwin_m]

Modern Railways for June is saying pretty much the same thing at greater length. Roundly 25000 single track km electrified (up from 14000 today), 3000stkm where the preferred traction type isn't immediately obvious, 1000stkm definitely to be operated by fuel cell and 700stkm definitely by battery.

 

[furnessvale]

Modern Railways for June is saying pretty much the same thing at greater length. Roundly 25000 single track km electrified (up from 14000 today), 3000stkm where the preferred traction type isn't immediately obvious, 1000stkm definitely to be operated by fuel cell and 700stkm definitely by battery.

Presumably freight will have to rely on bi-mode and carbon offsetting for the diesel legs (if that will still be allowed).

 

[Purple Orange]

Music to my ears! I wonder how much fully electrifying the remainder of the trans Pennine, MML & GWML would account for the 11,000 stkm?

 

[HSTEd]

So.... what are the chances any of that is actually delivered?

And what on earth is the point of developing magical fuel cell trains for the benefit of..... 1000stkm?
That's just silly.

How many stkm of electrification would be necessary to allow a battery solution to be used?

Presumably freight will have to rely on bi-mode and carbon offsetting for the diesel legs (if that will still be allowed).

If they really want 11,000stkm extra electrified, there will be precious few diesel legs left.

 

[PG]

My initial thought was a lot of hot-air posturing, however it seems that there is hope of something more definite.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I would be happy with a steady rolling program.

However just read Informed Sources and even Roger Ford is hopeful this time.

 

[edwin_m]

And what on earth is the point of developing magical fuel cell trains for the benefit of..... 1000stkm?
That's just silly.

How many stkm of electrification would be necessary to allow a battery solution to be used?

I assume this will be the likes of the West Highland, Far North, Kyle and Heart of Wales where there is a very long journey with very low traffic densities, so battery would be non-feasible and islands of electrification not very economic.

It's not a question of developing fuel cells magical or otherwise - other sectors will need them in vast numbers along with hydrogen storage suitable for safe use in transport. Essentially these can be fitted to a standard EMU. It doesn't matter if it has to be longer to make the space, as passenger numbers on these routes are so low anyway. This has been done already in prototype form with a 321.

 

[furnessvale]

If they really want 11,000stkm extra electrified, there will be precious few diesel legs left.

Fully agree with you and we can but hope. However, a blanket ban on ANY diesel use could take a 500km railfreight trip off rail for the want of a 5km diesel leg, which would be counterproductive.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Fully agree with you and we can but hope. However, a blanket ban on ANY diesel use could take a 500km railfreight trip off rail for the want of a 5km diesel leg, which would be counterproductive.

Agreed. Let’s get this done and worry about the rest in 2040 if I am still alive then.

 

[edwin_m]

Fully agree with you and we can but hope. However, a blanket ban on ANY diesel use could take a 500km railfreight trip off rail for the want of a 5km diesel leg, which would be counterproductive.

Terminal operators are going to have to provide self-powered locomotives to position wagons on non-electrified loading tracks - DIRFT already does this. If necessary they could use a main line certified locomotive that could also collect incoming trains from a few kilometres away. This could be a hydrogen or battery loco, which could be re-fueled or re-charged at the terminal between duties so the usual concern about range when hauling freight wouldn't be a problem here. A 66 with the engine and alternator removed and the space filled with hydrogen tanks or batteries would probably be good enough.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

A 66 with the engine and alternator removed and the space filled with hydrogen tanks or batteries would probably be good enough.

Is this being considered?

 

[HSTEd]

It's not a question of developing fuel cells magical or otherwise - other sectors will need them in vast numbers along with hydrogen storage suitable for safe use in transport.

Recent expert elicitation rounds have shown that consensus in other transport sectors has rapidly shifted away from hydrogen being significant to essentially all in on batteries.
The cost of establishing a suitable hydrogen infrastructure is enormous, and the handling issues continue to be rather problematic.

The only people really talking about hydrogen in substantial quantities (outside the niche fields of hypersonic aircraft and space launch) are trains at this point.

I assume this will be the likes of the West Highland, Far North, Kyle and Heart of Wales where there is a very long journey with very low traffic densities, so battery would be non-feasible and islands of electrification not very economic.

Well the nice thing about the Far North is an almost total absence of overbridges at the top end of the line.
The amount of time the train spends pottering around beyond Georgemas junction going to Wick and Thurso is easily enough to recharge the train, even with only an ultra-lightweight power supply being provided.

The Heart of Wales also has the benefit that the train will probably be recharged before each trip over the line (one-way), which reduces the battery capacity obviously.

(EDIT: Make it six overbridges in the 33km kilometres between Wick and Thurso, train spends an inordinant amount of time on it because it travels to Thurso twice)

 

[Domh245]

Recent expert elicitation rounds have shown that consensus in other transport sectors has rapidly shifted away from hydrogen being significant to essentially all in on batteries.

Even HGVs? I fail to see how battery is really suitable for the sort of weight critical & long distance application that they are without some sort of step change in battery tech.

 

[HSTEd]

Even HGVs? I fail to see how battery is really suitable for the sort of weight critical & long distance application that they are without some sort of step change in battery tech.

There is some work going on with bio-CNG, but remember most road hauls are actually really short.
Even 100 miles gets you an awful long way in the UK.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Road Haulage I reckon will go biodiesel for longer journeys.

 

[furnessvale]

Road Haulage I reckon will go biodiesel for longer journeys.

Still produces CO2 at point of use. If they are allowed to do it so should rail. Problem solved.

 

[furnessvale]

Is this being considered?

I have crayonista plans for putting a pan on the roof of a 66, will that do!

 

[edwin_m]

Still produces CO2 at point of use. If they are allowed to do it so should rail. Problem solved.

CO2 at the point of use isn't really an issue, as it doesn't become directly hazardous until the concentration is enough to asphyxiate, which can only happen in a confined space. The contribution of CO2 to climate change is the same wherever it is emitted.

If it's a true biofuel the CO2 put into the atmosphere when burning it is only returning the CO2 that was taken out of the atmosphere when growing the plants a few months or years previously. Obviously this isn't totally true as the processing and transport of the biofuel generates more CO2, but it's true to a degree.

What's more concerning is that biodiesel probably produces the same sort of particulates and nitrogen oxides as fossodiesel. These are a danger to people nearby - I agree probably more so in HGVs than in freight trains as HGVs are generally closer to people and have more emissions for the same amount of load transported.

 

[furnessvale]

CO2 at the point of use isn't really an issue, as it doesn't become directly hazardous until the concentration is enough to asphyxiate, which can only happen in a confined space. The contribution of CO2 to climate change is the same wherever it is emitted.

If it's a true biofuel the CO2 put into the atmosphere when burning it is only returning the CO2 that was taken out of the atmosphere when growing the plants a few months or years previously. Obviously this isn't totally true as the processing and transport of the biofuel generates more CO2, but it's true to a degree.

What's more concerning is that biodiesel probably produces the same sort of particulates and nitrogen oxides as fossodiesel. These are a danger to people nearby - I agree probably more so in HGVs than in freight trains as HGVs are generally closer to people and have more emissions for the same amount of load transported.

Agree with you, but the problem seems to be a desire to COMPLETELY eliminate diesel from rail. My point is, if the alternative is good enough for road, it is good enough for rail.

 

[edwin_m]

Agree with you, but the problem seems to be a desire to COMPLETELY eliminate diesel from rail. My point is, if the alternative is good enough for road, it is good enough for rail.

Certainly. A bi-mode would also be more viable if it was still allowed to use diesel for small parts of the journey (but still longer than would be possible with a battery or hydrogen tank small enough to fit in the space alongside the electrical equipment).

 

[PG]

Agree with you, but the problem seems to be a desire to COMPLETELY eliminate diesel from rail. My point is, if the alternative is good enough for road, it is good enough for rail.

Certainly. A bi-mode would also be more viable if it was still allowed to use diesel for small parts of the journey (but still longer than would be possible with a battery or hydrogen tank small enough to fit in the space alongside the electrical equipment).

And this all comes down to road and rail don't have a level playing field, which of course we already knew!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I have crayonista plans for putting a pan on the roof of a 66, will that do!

Rotflol - I was wondering!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

So a Class 93 will be the dog’s then?

 

[HSTEd]

What's more concerning is that biodiesel probably produces the same sort of particulates and nitrogen oxides as fossodiesel. These are a danger to people nearby - I agree probably more so in HGVs than in freight trains as HGVs are generally closer to people and have more emissions for the same amount of load transported.

In non-CO2 emissions, modern lorries beat the like of the Class 66.
Especially for particulates.

Just look at a Class 66 pulling away, it spews smoke like its a teakettle.

 

[edwin_m]

In non-CO2 emissions, modern lorries beat the like of the Class 66.
Especially for particulates.

Just look at a Class 66 pulling away, it spews smoke like its a teakettle.

That's probably true, because a Class 66 is over 20 years old and IIRC the original ones weren't subject to any emissions regulations at all and even the later ones had fairly minimal controls. Which does of course mean that rail freight emissions might be higher than otherwise, if uncertainty over decarbonization discourages operators from replacing 66s with newer diesels. A freight train should be able to beat the equivalent number of HGVs in terms of emissions pre unit load.

 

[furnessvale]

That's probably true, because a Class 66 is over 20 years old and IIRC the original ones weren't subject to any emissions regulations at all and even the later ones had fairly minimal controls. Which does of course mean that rail freight emissions might be higher than otherwise, if uncertainty over decarbonization discourages operators from replacing 66s with newer diesels. A freight train should be able to beat the equivalent number of HGVs in terms of emissions pre unit load.

We must also not forget that the 66 pulling away is the equivalent of 30 to 70 HGVs.

 

[furnessvale]

In non-CO2 emissions, modern lorries beat the like of the Class 66.
Especially for particulates.

Just look at a Class 66 pulling away, it spews smoke like its a teakettle.

However in CO2 terms HGVs are so far behind rail (by a factor of 3:1) no amount of tinkering with a diesel engine will close the gap.

 

[HSTEd]

However in CO2 terms HGVs are so far behind rail (by a factor of 3:1) no amount of tinkering with a diesel engine will close the gap.

Yes, but in a biodiesel future the CO2 emissions are largely irrelevant.