Regular operation of the world’s first hydrogen train started in September 2018 with two Alstom Coradia iLints on the somewhat isolated Cuxhaven-Bremerhaven-Buxtehude line in northwest Germany. Powered by eight 30kW hydrogen fuel cells (HFC) per car, they are replacing diesel trains on the line, with more iLints coming into service as they are completed. Hydrail, the portmanteau of hydrogen and rail transport, is the more common term for this new type of train.
UK hydrail conversion will be a Breeze
Unfortunately, the more limited British loading gauge precludes the use of such roof tanks on imported iLints. So Alstom and leasing company Eversholt Rail are converting some of the latter’s surplus Class 321 trains for hydrogen operation, called ‘Breeze’ trains. These are the Renatus units from Greater Anglia that have been retractioned with 3 phase motors and electrics by Kiepe. After scrapping the middle trailer cars, the iLint hydrogen fuel cell system will be installed in the end cars of the three car units at Alstom’s Widnes Transport Technology Centre. This will become Alstom’s hydrogen conversion centre of excellence once the trains are in production. Once they receive an order, Breeze trains could be operational within three years.
However, these trains will be space inefficient, as the three-car trains would provide the same passenger capacity as a two-car DMU – the area behind the drivers cab and the first set of passengers doors is lost to hydrogen storage. This means the trains will no longer be able to double up on short platform routes, which will limit the lines they can operate on.
Alstom/Eversholt are targeting Breeze units to replace diesel trains on regional lines. Breeze trains will have a range of 1,000 km and reach a maximum speed of 140km/h. In particular, the companies have been working with Northern to develop options for a fleet of Breeze units in the Tees Valley, from Middlesbrough to Nunthorpe, Bishop Auckland, and Saltburn.
These upgraded trains were given the acronym HMU (hydrogen multiple unit) and an entirely new TOPS class. As the Class 6xx series has been reserved for alternative traction like hydrogen, and Breeze trains are the first of this type, they were bestowed the first number, Class 600.
Alstom’s goal is to develop a motive technology with much cleaner operation. Due to much less vibration and a 7db noise reduction compared to diesel, fuel cells provide a more comfortable ride. And with higher energy density compared to batteries, hydrogen fuel cells seem to be a good solution. Alstom also wanted HFCs with the same performance as diesel in these application, for interoperability and scalability to retrofit this technology across many different train types. This meant using industry standard components as much as possible, and familiar cab equipment for the driver.
Hydrogen for these trains is produced by two wind turbines powering a 5MW electrolyser. Whilst pricey to operate, this method is much more environmentally friendly than the fossil fuel method, and it provides the purest hydrogen. Alstom built a mobile refuelling station, which has proven useful for demo trips to other lines and countries. Alstom has been looking for more customers, and signed a deal in Germany for 22 Coradia iLint hydrogen multiple unit (HMU) trains, for a 2022 delivery. Anonymous Widower provided his observations of his ride on the German iLint in 2019.
Flexing the hydrogen muscles
There is a homegrown hydrail solution in the offing as well – Porterbrook and the University of Birmingham’s Centre for Railway Research and Education (BCRRE) have fitted Ballard HFCs to an existing Class 319 electric multiple four-car unit, called HydroFLEX. The next step of main line testing has recently received approval, as HydroFLEX successfully completed its proof of concept.
The goal of HydroFLEX is to develop an electrically powered train that can operate cleanly on all of Britain’s rail network, as part of the effort to decarbonise Britain’s railway. DfT recently set the goal of eliminating the country’s 3,900 diesel-only locomotives from service by 2040, and is supplying some funding for HydroFLEX. UK Research and Innovation’s Innovate UK unit also provided £400,000 under its First of a Kind (FOAK) Programme, which will enable the HydroFLEX development team to develop the detailed final production design and testing of the train. Initially referred to as Class 319 Flex, they are now allocated the Class 799 TOPS designation.
HydroFLEX is a hybrid design, drawing most of its power from overhead lines or third rails, with the fuel cell kicking in where neither option exists. One of the four cars on the converted Class 319 unit holds the 100kW proton-exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell and 20kg of hydrogen stored in four high-pressure tanks. The HydroFLEX train also carries 200kW of lithium-ion batteries to store the hydrogen fuel cell and braking regeneration electricity.
Hydrogen hybrid power
Almost all current hydrogen-powered trains are really battery-powered, with the hydrogen fuel cells used to recharge the batteries. Fuel cells on trains are still too weak to provide sufficient electricity to power trains directly. For example, the fuel cell power of a Coradia iLint is well below that needed by a Pacer to crawl away from a station. Hydrogen-powered trains also need a large tank for the hydrogen, which as we have seen can limit passenger capacity. Unless it is creatively stored in the roof, shewn here with each car of Alstom’s German iLint storing 98kg of hydrogen:
In Europe, 60% of track-miles are already electrified. But electrifying existing tracks can be prohibitively expensive, particularly for low volume lines. Japan and South Korea are planning hydrogen trains, and California and North Carolina are evaluating converting passenger trains to hydrogen power in the US.
Advantages of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Powered Trains
1. Flexible levels of hybridization
A modular HFC design allows different hybrid configurations of batteries and fuel cells, by adjusting the ratio of fuel cells to batteries, to satisfy different performance and range requirements.
Hybridized fuel cell trains can:
- handle loads of up to 5,000 tonnes
- travel at speeds up to 180 km/h
- achieve long distance range of up to 700 km
2. None of the operational constraints of an all battery configuration
Battery powered trains have significant drawbacks, including heavier weight, shorter range, and increased downtime to recharge. This limits such trains to only certain routes.
Fuel cell powered trains can operate on a wider range of routes and environmental conditions, however, with much less downtime. HFC trains are most economical for routes of over 100 km.
3. Potential lower total cost of operation
Not only is catenary infrastructure for fully electric trains expensive to install ($1-2 million per kilometer), it can also be costly to maintain.
Ballard’s total cost of operation (TCO) analysis shows that hydrogen-powered trains become the least costly alternative compared to both diesel and catenary electrification when:
- the cost of diesel reaches EUR 1.35 per litre
- the electricity price is less than EUR 50 per MWh
4. Little compromise in performance
Hydrogen-powered trains are just as flexible and versatile as diesel-powered trains with a similar range. They can cope with the requirements of rail transport just as well as diesel trains can, and will likely be part of the replacement technology when diesel is phased out.
Best use profiles for hydrogen
Fuel cell systems on trains can vary depending on the power demand profile. Long-distance and freight trains make fewer stops, so a larger fuel cell and smaller battery system are recommended. But as light rail and commuter trains start and stop more frequently, so it makes sense to have a relatively larger battery and a smaller fuel cell to optimise the regenerative braking energy storage.
Fuel cell modules are combined in different combinations for trains, buses, ferries, and heavy-duty trucks, with different supporting components and structures accordingly.
The UK HydroFLEX prototype demonstrated that hydrogen fuel cells can be incorporated effectively within existing trains, without requiring modification of the drivers’ controls. What the pilot didn’t study was whether it would be cost effective, or environmentally prudent, to develop a hydrogen propelled railway and logistics chain.
UK view on hydrogen
Unofficially, DfT are fervently hoping that hydrogen fuel cells can help it avoid costly further rail line electrification, despite hydrogen energy efficiency being less than half of an overhead line power supply. This strategy has resulted in push back from much of the rail industry, with Transport Select Committee support, who want the more efficient electricity regenerating overhead electrification. Whilst the goal is 90mph/145km/h operation, DfT analysis is now saying that hydrogen is only worthwhile up to 75mph. This is due to the energy intensity required at higher speeds, which requires a greater quantity of battery and fuel cells, as well as hydrogen storage – so, fewer passengers.
For rail freight applications, hydrogen power would require four hydrogen fuel tank wagons to match the Class 66 diesel’s range, which would remove freight capacity that eliminates the gross margin on even the longest UK freight trains. On the passenger rail side, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) recommendation is to run hydrail trains on rural branch lines only (max 75mph) with few stops, as only a third of the kinetic energy in a stop is recoverable with regenerative braking.
The trial area is Northern services centred on Middlesborough in 5 directions e.g. Saltburn / Whitby / Northallerton / Darlington / Hartlepool + Sunderland, as as this area typically has long platforms. Hence the loss of usable train length isn’t a significant issue as it is elsewhere on the Northern network.
Scotland’s Class 314 hydrogen conversion
The devolved Scottish government is also investigating the costs and benefits of hydrogen fuel cells. Preliminary work started in September 2020, leading the University of St Andrews, Scottish Enterprise, and Transport Scotland to identify a suitable hydrogen train demonstrator. The goal of the £2.74 million contract is to develop a hydrogen demonstration train to be operational in time for the COP26 world environmental summit in Glasgow in November 2021. It will run on the Bo’ness and Kinneil heritage railway, off Network Rail’s metals to streamline the development process. Other objectives of this initiative are to determine whether such technology will be beneficial in addressing Scotland’s passenger rail services decarbonisation target of 2035.
In December 2020, the contract to convert a surplus Class 314 EMU was awarded to a consortium led by Arcola Energy, working with Arup, Abbott Risk Consulting, and Aegis. The 3-car Class 314 demonstrator hydrogen train will store 80kg of hydrogen. For actual passenger use however, an operational train would require double the amount of hydrogen, which would have to be stored within the coaches, in ventilated spaces. The 314s’ DC motors were replaced by AC motors for easier integration with Arcola’s powertrain. As the 314s were withdrawn from service due non-accessibility for persons of reduced mobility, they cannot re-enter service (without major alteration), and no new TOPS number was assigned.
Government support is still crucial however
Alstom’s Coradia iLint Germany trial came to fruition due to a large demonstrator trial grant. Currently no other proposed hydrail line makes sense economically without a large subsidy, as the mobile refuelling rigs are expensive and slow to refuel, to the extent that they actually increase the rolling stock requirement.
The DfT hydrogen train trial forced on Northern for the Windermere Line couldn’t pass the appraisal, as battery train was determined to be is a better choice for the line’s profile. Instead, the trial will be on Durham Coast line, using hydrogen generated from the planned Billingham Biomass Power Station (on the site of the former coal-fired North Tees Power Station), and the Wilton coal, oil, gas and biomass generation station.
The French Government has just entered the hydrogen realm, covering €47m of development costs for an order of twelve Alstom Coradia Polyvalent dual mode electric-hydrogen trains, with an option on two more. SNCF Voyages cites the €190m order as a significant step in reducing rail transport CO2 emissions, and to develop a hydrogen ecosystem. These four-car, 72m-long trains have 218 seats and the same performance as the dual mode electric-diesel version, and a 600km range. The Polyvalent is the latest variant in the Coradia family, with a maximum speed of 160 km/h (99 mph) in electric or bi-mode at voltages of 25 kV (AC) and 1.5 kV (DC). These trains will be operated in the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, Grand Est, and Occitanie regions.
So where do we stand then on hydrail?
Hydrail is still in the learning to walk with supports phase – economic self-sufficiency is still years or even decades away. Notwithstanding this fact, politicians have been quick to plan commercial operations on this still developing technology. Hydrogen fuel cell technology is about where battery electric vehicles (BEV) were in the 1990s – there were a few on the road, and even fewer in commercial operation. But it’s only in the late 2010s that BEVs are being mass produced. Applying a similar timescale to HFCs, 20 years from pilots to production, places hydrogen vehicles as somewhat commercially viable in the 2030s. Obviously the timescale depends greatly on how much research and development progress is made. As hydrogen fuel cells are increasingly used in more trials, applications, and modes, including ships, and clean hydrogen production comes down in price, the hydrogen landscape could slowly grow and mature into a useful technology.
Nevertheless, it will require quite a technical breakthrough to overcome hydrogen fuel cells’ 35% efficiency:
At best, hydrogen is only likely to be a novelty rail transport technology for niche and demonstrator applications.
Thanks to NGH and the LR Towers Brain Trust for the assistance in writing this article.
David Cebon at the Centre for Sustainable Road Freight (http://www.csrf.ac.uk/) strongly dislikes hydrogen for heavy haulage there. He argues that “windmill to wheel efficiencies” for trucks are 77% for catenary systems, 23% for hydrogen, there are no “shovel ready” solutions, and any significant hydrogen economy would need blue hydrogen from natural gas. http://www.csrf.ac.uk/2020/12/electricity-or-hydrogen-economy/
I think many of these arguments apply to rail too, as battery costs will continue to fall, but hydrogen costs won’t as it it remains niche,
If you watch or much quicker than watching 2 hour videos read the transcripts of the Transport Committee Trains fit for the future ? inquires, oral evidence from the UK rail industry is that batteries and hydrogen energy density is too low for 125 mph passenger trains and heavy freight trains, 9 Dec 2020 ( Transcript Page 17 ) Helen McAllister Network Rail said ” At the moment, the answer to how we decarbonise rail freight is significant electrification of the rail network, because the other technologies do not have the power capability to move a heavy freight train around, unless you start devoting wagons to fuel on the train, which destroys the economics “. Transport Committee Trains fit for the future ? Report 2021 Paragraph 54 Page 21 ” Alternatives are not suitable for freight and high speed services due to high energy demands ” and recommends electrification and Paragraph 93 Page 29 We were told that the rail freight industry is a ” high-volume, low-margin business “.
Watching the inquires I think the UK rail industry is only considering use of hydrogen gas at 350 bar and not liquid hydrogen and ammonia, I don’t remember any MP asking about liquid hydrogen. Alstom UK Decarbonisation Report The UK’S New Green Age 2021 Page 21 ” Hydrogen has a very high energy density per kg but as as a gas, one kg is a very large volume and so, to use and carry hydrogen in vehicles it is compressed. It still requires eight times the volume of a diesel train’s fuel tank to store the equivalent amount of energy. Batteries have a lower density still – 16 times that of diesel – and their weight for the amount of energy has a dramatic negative impact “. The alternatives to four tender wagons of hydrogen gas at 350 bar for freight trains is higher energy dense liquid hydrogen and ammonia ( hydrogen + nitrogen ), H2@Rail Workshop, Sandia National Laboratories, USA 2019, Page 21 the view of the experts was that there could be research into liquid hydrogen and ammonia trains, and BCRRE has leased a 125 mph HST Intercity 125 BR Class 43 train from Porterbrook so I wonder if it’s conducting research into liquid hydrogen, and there is also R & D into ammonia ships. Stadler has just unveiled a battery train with 185 km 115 mile range.
Energy density and the low efficiency means it will only ever be a niche application. Failing a major scientific breakthrough, proper electrification is the solution, with intermittent sections and batteries for branch lines IMHO.
Just like cable and pneumatic traction back in Victorian times, I think people’s effort in trying out various alternatives are in no doubt welcome and should be appreciated, but we should also accept that not all innovations lead to success. Even trials running smoothly and brilliantly like Parry People Movers did not take off.
That said, I would say Hydrail should be given the chance to go as far as it would be able to.
Quick spellcheck – it’s “Cuxhaven”, not “Cushaven”. And as to your statement that that line is ‘somewhat isolated’ – in Austria, at least, “Buxtehude” is used roughly like “Timbuktu” would be in English – as a stand-in for a place that is so remote as to be at the end of the world 😉
(Now of course, Timbuktu has a long and glorious history before the caravans moved, but I don’t know of an equivalent past in Buxtehude…)
The class 319 converted to hydrogen power is class 799, not 769 (which is the diesel hybrid version).
“Hydrail is till in the learning to walk with supports phase” should be “Hydrail is still in the learning to walk with supports phase”
Cuxhaven, not Cushaven.
This month’s Modern Railways has an article, hidden away on the European news page, on how battery/hybrid trains are increasingly dominating the market for low carbon rail, absent (complete) OHLE, as evidenced by the momentum of recent orders, mostly in Germany.
Good article! But I remain deeply skeptical that hydrogen will be as good as battery trains with a bit of station/in-motion charging added in anything more than a few special cases. Hydrogen has at best half the efficiency of batteries, and lots of expensive equipment is needed at all stages. And while everything needed for hydrogen operation is gettering cheaper, so are batteries, and it is hard to see how that gap can be closed.
@Londoner in Scotland, Lake Country, Ivan
Cheers, all corrected. LBM
Fascinating article, thank you! Spotted a possibly garbled sentence: “as battery train was determined to be is a better choice for the line’s profile”. [Corrected, cheers! LBM]
LBM Re the Alstom Breeze, you said: “After scrapping the middle trailer cars, the iLint hydrogen fuel cell system will be installed in the middle car of the three car units……”.
In fact it should read something like:
“After scrapping the middle trailer car, the iLint hydrogen fuel cell system will be installed in the end cars of the three car units……”
A 4-car class 321 unit has a driving trailer car, intermediate trailer car, intermediate motor car (pantograph/transformer), and driving trailer car.
Another point I’m not 100% sure about…I thought the class 321 Renatus replacement traction drives with three phase motors was supplied by Kiepe, not Alstom.
[Cheers 130, I’ve clarified the wording, and popped a diagram into the article which shows the huge size of the hydrogen tank, taking up most of the car. LBM]
A couple of years ago the Ontario regional rail operator Metrolinx announced a study of hydrogen power as an alternative to electrification of the GO Transit network around Toronto. Currently GO services use bi-level cars in consists of up to 10 cars — so, very heavy — with diesel locomotives. The study was recently dropped when it was realized that hydrogen was simply not a workable solution.
Accepting all the technical and economic difficulties, it needs to be recognised that development of hydrogen power is at quite an early stage. Progress with other technologies suggests that improved efficiency can be expected.
Batteries are unlikely to be an acceptable long-term solution to transport’s power requirements, because of the impact of mining lithium and cobalt, to say nothing of the availability of supply. Hydrogen has the potential to be a much more environmentally sound way forward.
@James Webber Thankfully Metrolinx finally came to their senses, albeit long after it should’ve. Nevertheless, and fortunately, the agency is continuing on its plans to electrify the busiest Lakeshore East and West lines.
Re 130,
“Another point I’m not 100% sure about…I thought the class 321 Renatus replacement traction drives with three phase motors was supplied by Kiepe, not Alstom.”
Renatus: 3 phase drive electronics supplied by Kiepe, traction motors supplied by Traktionssysteme Austria (TSA), they also got new larger transformers (+12% extra) to power the Air Con and other passenger upgrades fitted. Electrical work done at Wolverton and other refurb work by Wabtec Doncaster.
[Corrected three phase motors supplier, cheers! LBM]
Glasgow summit will be in Nov 21, obviously not 20.
Long Branch Mike — so based on your response to my previous comment it seems you really are in Ontario, as I had suspected — and have a station named after you to boot!
@James Webber I’m a citizen of the world eh.
‘ trains will no longer be able to double up on short platform routes’ ? If reverse units are coupled there are still 4 central contiguous cars ( with SDO for the power car doors). Addtional cameras required for sighting out of position.
‘least costly alternative compared to both diesel and catenary electrification’ also depends on traffic type so there is a presumed unstated application for low usage rural routes.
In a case of two, or three minds, but with a single thought, the May edition of Modern Railways touches on this & electrification costs & DfT’s input.
R Ford on pages 6-9 & Ian Walmsley, ever so seriously (?) P 44-47
Well worth the read, & covers a lot of the problems, including “mindset”.
Fascinating stuff.
As with a lot of the other commenters, I’m deeply sceptical that Hydrogen can win the technical arms race against batteries. The sheer amount of investment into battery technology right now is incredible and better energy density, much faster charging and batteries not needing certain rarer minerals are all well on the way with graphene, solid state and all the other developments. Hydrogen is getting some attention but won’t be able to break the laws of physics – why throw electricity at making Hydrogen when you’ll get 4x as much out of the same electricity via a battery?
There does seem to be a certain “boy racer” type appeal to the Hydrogen proposition that’s disproportionate to its real capabilities – this seems to be blind-siding politicians and others to its limitations.
Nevertheless, it’s interesting and excellent that the research is happening and it’s a wild card for sure. Maybe they will find a way to hold that niche where the distance is too far for batteries but not viable for catenary.
Given the edict to remove diesel traction in 19 years then time is already running out for the railways in England; If the North East wants to keep freight on rails then the only available solutions are bio-diesel or hydrogen fuel cells. I know it’s in the decarbonisation strategy that freight routes in the area should be electrified but there’s no government commitment to this or – crucially – any actual funding in sight.
As the article says hydrogen for traction makes more sense in the NE because rail is just one of the clients for infrastructure that’s already being funded to make a “Hydrogen cluster” to support heavy industry (see for example https://www.netzeroteesside.co.uk/ & https://www.equinor.com/en/news/20210317-low-carbon-hat-trick-uk.html )
FWIW Equinor is a also partner in Dogger Bank wind farm, power from which will also come ashore in Teesside (Lackenby), so I assume they see some potential of surplus electrical power being used to make hydrogen.
I accept that the hydrogen cluster is still work-in-progress, but if you are industry or the Mayor of Tees Valley it is a committed project that is delivering funding and jobs NOW. And crucially it’s not dependent on waiting years as the DfT and/or Network Rail to produce study after study while the net-zero clock ticks down. Electrification is the best answer , but as it’s not on offer I’ll take the bird in the hand.
I’d also suggest that it’s quite conceivable that
a) government brings forward 2040 date
b) air quality legislation makes it challenging to run diesel trains through urban areas such as Middlesbrough / Stockton / Hartlepool / Darlington.
When it comes to the point – and I think it will – where the choice is “run the railways” or “meet legally binding emissions targets that green activists can enforce through the courts” the North East might be very glad it’s gone down the hydrogen route for rail rather than waiting for something to turn up
@Aleks
I was thinking about this the other day and the conclusion I came to is that in many cases its probably more about the signalling than the actual platform itself.
In many cases, for the front of the train to go beyond the end of the platform, it would require the signal at the end of that platform to be moved. Which probably isn’t the simple task that it sounds like as it may lead to other signals also needing to be moved.
And that’s only the good case, the worse case is the presence of a level crossing at the end of the platform…
@djl For the signalling I suggested on board cameras. Platforms are now being positioned after crossings for over-run safety and because crossings are closed for the duration of the halt. Rear overhangs are then the issue but new stock will require new infrastructure work.
If bio-diesel is allowed as a renewable ( for CO2 but minor impact elsewhere – biodiesel emits 11% less carbon monoxide and 10% less particulate matter than diesel ) then it is the most economical option on the most rural routes through sparsely populated open country where pollutants are less damaging. Where rail lines have no freight or climatic justification making investments for less than half a dozen one or two car daily services is unrealistic.
The problem I have with the whole arguement around electrification vs battery vs hydrail is the statement “electrification is too expensive so we need to look at alternatives”. I don’t disagree that recent electrification projects have been expensive, but surely the solution is to look at the cost of electrification and reduce its cost? The Great Western electrification project should not be used to work out the cost per mile for a branch line.
Battery or hydrail look attractive because you don’t need all that wiring infrastructure, but it ignores the whole solution costs. Unless you have a chemical manfacturing plant which produces hydrogen as a by-product, you are going to have to get it using an expensive and (currently) inefficient processes so what is the cost of that process?
These are made up numbers but due to inefficiencies of the solutions, the calculations goe something like …
– the cost of electrification will be the (reduced) cost of the catenary/third rail plus 10 x nuclear power stations or wind farms
– the cost of battery rail would be 20 x nuclear power stations/wind farms plus 3 battery factories,
– the cost of Hydrail will be 40 x nuclear power stations/wind farms plus 10 electrolysing plants plus 1000s of miles of hydrogen pipelines plus 200 refueling points
Is Hydrail still cost effective compared to electrification, even when you assume developments to improve effeciency? All those extra power generating facilities may still be cheaper than more cost-effecient electrification, but Hydrail advocates deliberately ignore the infrastructure costs.
An update ?
Government announcement on decarbonisation – presumably excepting the Railways?
As always, it’s going to be getting it past the Treasury that is going to be the difficult bit, I think.
Birmingham Centre for Railway Research and Education and English railway rolling stock company, Porterbrook, received a grant of $9.9 million to develop a fuel cell train prototype, the Hydro FLEX, from the UK’s Department for Transport.
[Promotional link snipped. LBM]
A full-scale prototype was showcased at the Rail Live Conference at Quinton Rail Technology Centre, Warwickshire in late June.
Wouldn’t the best solution be to learn how to electrify for a sensible amount of money by copying the foreign countries that do it massively cheaper?
I’d have thought to cost savings on being able to buy simple fast light standard EMUs would be outweighed by the cost savings on not electrifying track.
There has been a parallel document from RIA explaining how the cost of electrification can be/is being reduced. This was produced in 2019: https://www.riagb.org.uk/RIA/Newsroom/Stories/Electrification_Cost_Challenge_Report.aspx
It seems to be fairly common ground that the Bedford-Corby electrification has been carried out at a reasonable cost, but not as low as could be achieved with a rolling programme.
Several factors have contributed, notably re-remembering that acceptably deep mast foundations (ie, not massively deep foundations) are OK and that there are all sorts of ways to manage clearances under some bridges that avoid them having to be rebuilt.
Cost be damned! Looking at the options from a hopefully clear-aired future with the realisation that costs are always horrendous but we cope with and indeed forget them, then unless the biochemical numbers just can’t pass the physics test – given as yet unimagined improvements in efficiency; hydrogen has to be the way and preferably not from natural gas.
Multiple caveats aside, it can’t be beyond the wit of mankind to make this work.
@JP
Unfortunately the laws of physics aren’t something the wit of man can change…
Hydrogen will no doubt find its applications, but for the moment it is quite clear that other solutions (electrification, batteries) have significant advantages over it.
Is it really be true that the electricity supply would be 1.5 million volts?
“The Polyvant is the latest variant in the Coradia family, with a maximum speed of 160 km/h (99 mph) in electric or bi-mode at voltages of 25 kV and 1,500 kV.”
[I’ve corrected the text to state it is 25 kV (AC) and 1.5 kV (DC). LBM]
E&T (Engineering and Technology) magazine asks Are hydrogen fuelled vehicles a waste of our time and energy?.
Long story short, Yes.
It’s increasingly clear that electric trains are the future, no ifs, no buts. The only area of debate is where the electricity comes from. For all electricity sources – possibly bar one – batteries will be a feature. As we are seeing in automotive, battery powered cars can and do work. The same is true for railways. For both rail and road, the issue is range and means of charging. Charging batteries takes longer than refuelling with diesel or petrol. Railways have the important advantage that a continuous source of electrical energy is possible in the form of overhead electrification (OLE). With OLE you have a virtually continuous electricity supply. Even so, a small battery might be appropriate to avoid complex wiring in depots and to allow trains to pass though short areas that have been de-energised for some reason.
But where OLE isn’t cost effective (however defined) then you are left with batteries and frequent charging until, say, you want to travel further than the battery capacity allows and you don’t want to hang around waiting for your vehicle to charge. That’s when you need a range extender, and, if internal combustion engines are no longer allowed, this is hydrogen’s niche – as a battery train’s means to be continuously recharged i.e. as a range extender. If not hydrogen, then what?
By the way, this argument only works for passenger trains. For freight other than freight carried by trains derived from passenger trains, the only non diesel option is OLE with battery for the last mile.
What is the story about super capacitors these days? They were supposed to be a better bet than batteries but apparently have sunk without trace.
CXXX + LBM
So, we & Captain Deltic are in agreement that “Electric is the only way to go”
Now convince the
Bionic DuckweedHydrogen-vapourware proponents in the DfT – a much more difficult problem.As already noted, it isn’t actually a technical problem, at all, it’s a “political” one.
JJ
Supercapacitors are still around, still getting better – but very slowly, particularly when compared to present battery progress
Hydrogen for fuel is a complete dead-end. The reasons are the inefficiency, and the very short lifetime of the tanks used to store compressed hydrogen.
A thought experiment is in order. Suppose you took these “hydrogen” trains. Replace the fuel cell and hydrogen tanks with a large battery. Replace the hydrogen electrolyzer with another large battery, so that the wind turbines charge a large battery on the ground, which then charges a large battery on the train.
You have vastly increased the efficiency (batteries are upwards of 80% efficient, unlike the round-trip detour through hydrogen) and you have the same range between refuelling/recharging, and the train lasts more than twice as long (because hydrogen embrittlement destroys hydrogen tanks), and the entire thing is cheaper in upfront capital costs.
Battery-electric trains work just fine. Stop messing around with hydrogen. Build some battery trains if you’re not in a position to put catenary up. Battery trains are already being adopted worldwide.
To elaborate further, the sole appeal of hydrogen over batteries is “fast refuelling”. On railway lines where the traffic is not frequent enough to justify the upfront expense of overhead lines, however, the low traffic means the trains routinely have plenty of idling time to be recharged. As long as the route is within the length limit that a single charge can cover, recharging time is not generally an issue. Current commercially available battery locomotives and train sets have a range over 100 miles, and it seems to be rising quickly; obviously a longer range can be provided by adding another battery tender car, and 200 or 300 miles should be readily achievable if needed.
While there are countries with low-traffic railway routes longer than 200 miles for which neither overhead electrification nor batteries would make sense, the UK doesn’t have any such routes. The countries which do will just continue to use diesel for those few routes, since they don’t amount to much in terms of total fuel consumption; similarly to the number of heritage routes which use coal, it just doesn’t amount to anything.
Is Hydrail still cost-effective compared to electrification, even when you assume developments to improve efficiency? All those extra power-generating facilities may still be cheaper than more cost-efficient electrification, but Hydrail advocates deliberately ignore the infrastructure costs.
Battery rather than hydrogen trains suggested in Sachsen, Germany study.
“The use of battery rather than hydrogen traction is recommended in a study into options for replacing diesel multiple-units on regional routes around Dresden where electrification is unlikely in the short to medium term.
“The study found that hydrogen and battery power would each be feasible, but battery power would be more economical and suitable as an interim option for lines where electrification is envisaged…”
Why the world’s first hydrogen rail line in Germany may not be as environmentally friendly as it seems.
Sabine Hossenfelder, a PhD in physics, has a popular YouTube channel in which she explains technology in terms that everyone can understand. Her video Hydrogen Will Not Save Us. Here’s Why explains why the hydrogen hype is not warranted.