Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 29 replies
  • Subscribers 17 subscribers
  • Views 3416 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

HS2 railway

CliveS
We would all agree that an express link fro London to Birmingham and Manchester would be of great benefit BUT do we have to electrify the entire length of track or just the parts inside city boundaries. 

We can half the construction/infrastructure cost if we use diesel electric trains cross country and convert to electric only inside the city. 

This is environmentally friendly as power stations are only 60% efficient at best and mostly use gas at normal/peak times anyway; isn't it ??
  • 0
    It is a reasonable question, ditto for electric cars. For the UK rail network this is a good document to explain why electrification is a Good Thing: https://www.bathnes.gov.uk/sites/default/files/sitedocuments/Planning-and-Building-Control/Planning/nr_a_guide_to_overhead_electrification.pdf


    If that link doesn't work try Googling* 132787-ALB-GUN-EOH-000001 (unfortunately I can't find the original source of this report)

    (* Other search engines are available Relaxed)


    Re the the first half of your first sentence: actually no, not everyone here or elsewhere would agree with this. It is perfectly possible to make arguments that the investment could be better made elsewhere. But for professional reasons I'm sadly not going to discuss that further, or express a personal opinion, on an open forum - otherwise I'll get accused of bias one way or the other!


    Although I'm always happy to keep suggesting that the Greater West Electrification programme should be carried on down to Plymouth ? With the diesels from Plymouth to Gunnislake replaced with steam ? Although to retain my environmental credentials I will admit that we do need to find a low CO2 approach to firing steam engines first ...


    Thanks,


    Andy


    (Declaration of interest: I am a member of the Assessment Body team on the Greater West Electrification programme)
  • 0
    Approximately 75% of the railways in India (the network is massive) are electrified but steam trains were commonplace on major routes even as recently as the 1990s.


    Diesel trains are falling out of favour on major and mid-range routes worldwide apart from in the US. 


    I hold the view that HS2 is a white elephant that has been imposed on Britain by the EU, but an HS2 that is electrified only in urban areas and use diesel electric trains will be seen as an eccentric oddity, or even a kludge, by countries that operate electric high speed services.
  • 0
    Just one more thought, taking this a step further: I may well be wrong, and would be delighted to be so, however it seems to me that we are really bad in the UK at making whole life environmental assessments of future engineering options. Carrying on the examples above, I think (but I'm prepared to be proved wrong) that this has been done pretty well for electric trains, however I'm struggling to find authoritative and truly independent evidence for the overall environmental benefit of electric cars, from cradle to grave of both the cars themselves, and of the cars they are replacing. (They probably are a benefit, but it's hard to find info which doesn't link back to someone trying to sell you a shiny new electric car! E.g. James Dyson this week.). It is always hugely complex, and generally you can't easily separate issues out into neat bite-size chunks - e.g. the fact that there is an interaction between the use of cars and the use of trains.


    So, to finally get to my point, as an engineering profession should we be encouraging the development of far more environmental audit engineers to ensure questions like Clive's are definitely answered as correctly as possible, and should we be considering how truly independent (or at least unbiased) wide ranging audits could be carried out to inform policy decisions?


    Thanks,


    Andy
  • 0

    Arran Cameron:

    I hold the view that HS2 is a white elephant that has been imposed on Britain by the EU,




    I can comment on that - the desire to build HS2 is absolutely nothing do do with the EU!!!! It will be compliant to EU interoperability regulations, but equally (more or less) any Network Rail mainline upgrade would be as well.


     


  • 0

    Andy Millar:

    ...to retain my environmental credentials I will admit that we do need to find a low CO2 approach to firing steam engines first …




    Andy,

    How about going for a modern take on the Scotts Still engine, but fuelling it with hydrogen. This was a diesel/steam hybrid having a diesel cylinder as normal but with the diesel exhaust heating steam which was used on the undersides of the pistons making it double acting. With hydrogen fuel you would be condensing water from the exhaust which would make up for lost water in the steam cycle. Of course, you will probably find there was a reason it didn't catch on. (I know of two ships that had this engine installed when built in the late 1920's and when one of them was torpedoed by a U-Boat in 1942 the story is that the engineers in the lifeboats were cheering as the ship sank...…..)

    Alasdair

  • 0
    The idea that electric trains are more efficient than diesel engines needs to be looked at not just from a cost per kilometre of energy [ which is nearly the same] but in the cost of building, maintaining and financing the huge electric gantry infrastructure. Then there are grid and substation costs all unnecessary if the cross country line is just sleepers and 2 rails with fibre-optic signalling cable backed up by satnav checking.

    Same with electric cars.  Perfect for cities in fact a must environmentally;, but uneconomical and cumbersome for cross country transport.  Just imagine a 20 ton truck and trainer with 10 tons of battery and it can only move 50 miles and needs to stop for an hour to recharge the battery.  The recharge station already has a queue of 5 lorries and the grid is overloaded  so no extra charging point are planned.  A nightmare scenario.

    ANSWER  Long distance cross country heavy transportation will ALWAYS be cheapest and quicker using diesel which is no more damaging to the environment than a hydrocarbon burning power station anyway.
  • 0

    CliveS:

    ANSWER  Long distance cross country heavy transportation will ALWAYS be cheapest and quicker using diesel which is no more damaging to the environment than a hydrocarbon burning power station anyway. 




    Are you saying that long distance electric trains are actually a dead end in technology or an obsolete technology? Many countries have electrified their rail networks since 1945 but, with hindsight, was it a bad decision?


    Take into account that with diesel trains you only have the choice of hydrocarbon fuels whereas with electric trains there are more options to choose from how the electricity is generated.



     

  • 0
    Yes, if you can generate electricity by solar, wind, tidal or hydro at a cheaper price per unit, than burning hydrocarbon fuel then it could be worth electrifying a railway line. But electrification of cross country in UK or interstate is a waste of money and materials and is just bad economics. 

    See website  https://nottenergy.com/our-services/resources/energy-cost-comparison/  

    A 600 kW diesel electric train may only be 40% efficient but that is the same price energy wise than purchasing from the grid and you save all the electric infrastructure costs.


    EXAMPLE  run a train from London to Birmingham for one hour at 90 miles per hour with engine running on average 50% throttle. Total energy used 300 kWhrs.  A litre of diesel will produce 9.8 kWhr of energy so the train will use 300/9.8 litres of fuel if 100% efficient so it will consume 300/9.8*100/40 or 76 litres of fuel-oil which at 40p per litre is £31..  Purchase from the grid of 300 kWhr at  10p per unit on average will cost the same
  • 0

    CliveS:

    Yes, if you can generate electricity by solar, wind, tidal or hydro at a cheaper price per unit, than burning hydrocarbon fuel then it could be worth electrifying a railway line. But electrification of cross country in UK or interstate is a waste of money and materials and is just bad economics. 

    See website  https://nottenergy.com/our-services/resources/energy-cost-comparison/  

    A 600 kW diesel electric train may only be 40% efficient but that is the same price energy wise than purchasing from the grid and you save all the electric infrastructure costs.


    EXAMPLE  run a train from London to Birmingham for one hour at 90 miles per hour with engine running on average 50% throttle. Total energy used 300 kWhrs.  A litre of diesel will produce 9.8 kWhr of energy so the train will use 300/9.8 litres of fuel if 100% efficient so it will consume 300/9.8*100/40 or 76 litres of fuel-oil which at 40p per litre is £31..  Purchase from the grid of 300 kWhr at  10p per unit on average will cost the same




    So, where in the world is electrification of long distance railways economically viable?


    Intercity trains typically have a lifespan of between 30 and 50 years. The Intercity 125 has just recently been retired from the Great Western line after thundering along it tirelessly for over 40 years. 

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-48327739


    Do you have any evidence that in 30 to 50 years time the cost of powering a train with diesel will be less than powering an equivalent sized train with electricty, or even that the price of diesel will rise in-line with or less than the rate of inflation?


    Intercity trains are not like cars which tend to be changed by their owner every few years and (in Britain) become a ton of scrap metal on wheels after 10 years. They are a medium to long term capital investment.
  • 0

    CliveS:

    Yes, if you can generate electricity by solar, wind, tidal or hydro at a cheaper price per unit, than burning hydrocarbon fuel then it could be worth electrifying a railway line. But electrification of cross country in UK or interstate is a waste of money and materials and is just bad economics. 

    See website  https://nottenergy.com/our-services/resources/energy-cost-comparison/  

    A 600 kW diesel electric train may only be 40% efficient but that is the same price energy wise than purchasing from the grid and you save all the electric infrastructure costs.


    EXAMPLE  run a train from London to Birmingham for one hour at 90 miles per hour with engine running on average 50% throttle. Total energy used 300 kWhrs.  A litre of diesel will produce 9.8 kWhr of energy so the train will use 300/9.8 litres of fuel if 100% efficient so it will consume 300/9.8*100/40 or 76 litres of fuel-oil which at 40p per litre is £31..  Purchase from the grid of 300 kWhr at  10p per unit on average will cost the same




    Are you involved in railway engineering or planning? That website provides residential consumer prices for energy. Large users of energy like railways are able to negotiate discounts for bulk purchases with energy suppliers.



     

Community Rules & Guidelines