Tag: Future

• Why I Think HS2 Is A Good Thing

  HS2 is perhaps the most controversial railway in the UK, despite it not yet existing. While there are some legitimate arguments against the project, overall I think that Europe’s newest high speed line will be a good thing, and I hope you, dear reader, will be satisfied with my explanation of this stance, following a run through of arguments against, starting with…

  WE DON’T NEED IT

  Yes, we do. Since 1997, passenger numbers have more than doubled on the National Rail network. The West Coast Main Line, between Rugby and London Euston, is the busiest mixed-use railway in Europe, and, without separating the faster trains from the mix, overcrowded misery for those using it will ensue. That is without considering the congestion and environmental problems of people switching to road transport.

  You could perhaps argue that with the rise of video conferencing and other tools allowing for people to work from home, there is no need to expand transport capacity any further. I would counter that by pointing out that demand for rail travel continues to increase in the North, and that the poor rail service in the South is leading to people losing faith in the railways. We must improve things on the railways, or people will go elsewhere.

  If we (and by we I mean the British) fail to invest in our railway, then not only is inconvenience caused but safety is reduced by people travelling on the roads. In the past 11 years, no-one has died as a result of a train accident on the railways of Great Britain. In that time, many more will have died on the roads, though I do not have the exact figures.

  LET’S UPGRADE THE REST OF THE NETWORK

  It may surprise some readers to learn that this is already happening. Readers from Derby will not be surprised in the slightest, but right across the country, capacity and speed upgrades are being undertaken, and unfortunately are failing to keep pace with demand. Electrification work has also taken place both on the Great Western Main Line and on the Midland Main Line, with varying degrees of success, but with a great deal of cost. Another innovation of recent times is digital signalling technology, that reduces the personnel required to signal trains and (at least in theory) increases the reliability of the network.

  All this upgrading is entirely welcomed by me, but as I understand it, it does cause a number of problems. Overrunning engineering works have caused delays in the past, particularly a few Christmases ago, and look likely to continue to do so. One of the major causes of the present Northern timetable chaos is the late running of the Bolton line electrification, so many of the electric trains Northern have cannot be used, and the diesel trains used instead cannot be used where they are supposed to.

  The point is that although spending money on the conventional network has its merits, it causes disruption to passengers, which never goes down well, and costs a great deal for what are often marginal gains.

  IT WILL RUIN THE COUNTRYSIDE

  This argument has rather more merit to it, considering that the new line will cut through the green and pleasant land which is England, of which I am a fan. One must, however, note the recent announcement by HS2 of a “green corridor” along Phase One of the route, with, among other things, 7 million new trees and shrubs. For particulars, I would use the link here. I would also point to the only High-Speed line currently in the UK, HS1, in Kent, which has managed to minimise its environmental impact through, among other things, moving the soil of ancient forests, to transplant new trees into.

  One must also remember that motorways, road’s equivalent to a high-speed railway, are far wider and the emissions are also far more of an air quality problem than the railway would be.

  PEOPLE WILL BE DISPLACED

  This is true. Those that live on the actual route have been offered compensation, but those that live near it will have to endure the construction traffic for up to a decade. The construction work at Euston will be particularly disruptive, and go on for much longer than work on each phase of the route. I admit that this will not be a great thing for those affected, and that the railway will do little to help local communities, except perhaps providing work for local contractors.

  However, this argument somewhat misses the point. During the construction of the major railways into London, whole streets were destroyed, whole suburbs displaced, and the character of the villages surrounding London completely changed. However, I suspect that no-one in our modern times would argue that connecting the country was therefore a bad idea and should never have happened.

  IT WILL COST TOO MUCH

  Yes, the cost of several tens of billions is very large, especially in an era when the emergency services are under pressure, as are schools, libraries and other public services are under threat.

  However, building this high-speed railway will provide thousands of jobs for the next few decades, as well as the economic benefit of rapid travel between many of the UK’s major conurbations. Some may argue that business travellers won’t use a faster service, and will opt for the cheap-but-cheerful option of the conventional train. I urge these people to look at Birmingham New Street, and compare the passengers of the slow London North Western Railway service to those on Virgin’s Pendolinos – the suits opt for the quicker train.

  IT WILL ONLY SERVE LONDON AND BIRMINGHAM

  On the first count this is patently not true – Phase 2 of the line will serve Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Crewe, and a whole host of other places in the North. Furthermore, with connections to the conventional railway at Sheffield and Crewe, trains from HS2 will also serve destinations further North still, including those in Scotland, making the whole journey faster.

  On the second count, even if it was just a line between London and Birmingham, this would still help people in the North. How, you ask? Well, with the fast trains from Birmingham removed from the busy section of line south of Rugby, there is now more room for trains from the North, which means more services for Manchester, Liverpool, and many other places on the West Coast Main Line.

  In Conclusion

  Dear reader, I believe it is in the national interest to build this railway line. Even if you do not accept my rebuttal of the various points listed above, one must admit that this is a chance to show the world the very best of British engineering. For too long, we have been seen as the sick man of Europe, with no major high-speed railway of our own. Here, an opportunity presents itself, not just to rectify this shortcoming, but also to build the best railway in the world.

  Many of the problems of conventional railways will be eliminated. Modern in-cab signalling will mean far more regular trains, and the new trains will be at least 200 m long, so plenty of room for everyone. Many will also be doubled to 400 m long, by coupling the trains together. Each station is being designed with care and attention, to make them pleasant places to be, not just a place to get on a train.

  Alas, this is probably getting a little long at this point, so with that I shall wish you an excellent day, and ask you to pass this on if you know anyone who might be interested.

  August 15, 2018

  Birmingham, Britain, British, Controversy, Engineering, Future, Green, High Speed, HS1, HS2, Leeds, London, Manchester, Rail, Railways, Transport, Upgrade

  ---

• The Coming Rail Revolution

  Diesel trains are wonderful. No really, truly wonderful things. You can get enough power out of a diesel engine for most applications, the fuel is readily available and quite cheap, and, while they don’t quite have the captivating power of a steam engine, old diesel locomotives do still command attention among enthusiasts.

  That is not to say, outside of the spheres of operational convenience and trainspotting, they don’t have their problems. No doubt you, dear reader, will have heard of the dieselgate scandal at Volkswagen, and you were probably also unsurprised to learn of the various Sulfur and Nitrogen based pollutants that stem from diesel engines. Perhaps, with some astonishment, or a sense of unsurprised resignation, you may have learned of the quality, or lack thereof, of the air in the cities of the UK. Yes, we learn that the air quality in the great cities of this nation is far worse than the limits set by both the UK and many other organisations, including the EU.

  Of course, this is a difficult issue of modern times, and if we are being honest, the main culprit is most likely the proliferation of motor vehicles powered by fossil fuels. I confess that this is not my area of expertise, but for some more detailed commentary on the issue, I refer you to my article on cars, which can be found helpfully here.

  But, my dear reader, we should not be complacent about the railways, and our aforementioned diesel trains. Though, due to the low-friction nature of the steel wheel on steel rail system on which railways work, the energy consumption of a train per passenger is lower than a car, we should perhaps give trains a lower priority, this is no excuse, as I shall now explain.

  You may have noticed shiny new Tesla cars appearing on the roads, or perhaps on television. If you haven’t seen one of these fine new American machines, you may well have seen a different kind of electric automobile, a Nissan Leaf maybe, or a (fairly odd-looking, if I may say so) BMW i3, or some kind of Toyota hybrid car. What they show is that the electrification of the roads is coming, or rather, it is already happening, and it even extends to motorsport, with Formula E. This could, with time, reduce the harmful emissions, of the automobiles themselves that is, to nothing.

  Not content with the electrification of private transport, the inventive Mr Musk has decided to extend this potentially life-saving innovation to the complex world of road freight. He has devised this electric truck, that he claims at least will do 300 miles on a single charge, and 500 for the top model. Now I am not going to try and argue that this is a bad thing, as in itself this is rather good news, particularly for those living near main roads, but I am slightly worried about this development. I am not concerned, dear reader, about the issues of building such large batteries, and the environmental problems thereof, though that is a valid concern.

  No, I am concerned because this makes us in the rail camp, frankly, look bad. At the moment, rail freight is much more environmentally friendly than the equivalent road freight. After all, one lorry can take only one shipping container, whereas one train can carry over 30. The low steel wheel on steel rail friction also reduces the energy consumption per container, so on the assumption that both modes (road and rail) are using diesel engines, rail is going to result in lower overall emissions. However, with the road freight electric, this is turned on its head, as the rail option is still producing emissions.

  Now I shall grant myself, and the others in the rail camp, the small comfort that some of the main lines in the UK are electrified, generally using overhead live wires from which the trains can draw power. The unfortunate fact is that most of the ports and freight terminals are not electrified, leaving the freight operator with two options:

  i) Change the locomotive from diesel to electric when the train reaches the main line

  This is possible, and used to be reasonably routine. It is a solution, dear friends, not without its problems. On the contrary, you have complications with where to change locomotives, and store them when not in use. You also have the obstacle of how to fit in all the associated train movements on an increasingly crowded network. As such, that leaves us with…

  ii) Run the train with a diesel locomotive all the way

  Far too often, this is what actually happens, even when the distances “under the wires” are hundreds of miles. All the same, as I am sure you are aware, this does bring the problem of emissions.

  So a solution that reduces, or preferably eliminates, the emissions of freight locomotives, is needed.

  Earlier I mentioned the various electric automobiles that are beginning to furnish the driveways of fine, upstanding UK citizens. This brings me onto the subject of passenger transport, and here again, railways are in a spot of bother. You see, there are many routes on which there is no electrification, particularly in the North and in the Midlands, mainly due to economic reasons. Much of the reason is economic – one cannot make a good business case for electrifying a railway, with the associated cost of overhead wires and their structures, which only has perhaps 4 trains an hour. Regrettably, the automobile manufacturers can justify the expense for a car for about 4 people.

  You also have similar problems with non-electrified lines joining electrified ones, but the problem is even worse with passenger trains. The majority of passenger trains are formed of multiple units – that is, trains with engines and traction equipment under the floor, and in fixed formations with a fixed number of carriages. This confers a number of advantages on the train operator, who does not have to spend the time and money of marshalling trains together, or allocate a locomotive of the correct power rating for the train. It makes it almost impossible to make diesel trains run on electricity from overhead wires, however, and bi-modes (trains with diesel engines and electrical equipment) are heavy and expensive.

  So again, a solution is demanded to reduce, or preferably eliminate, the emissions of passenger trains, at least the lightly used ones. I am of course not talking of the excellent electric trains, of which you are no doubt aware, that operate in numerous parts of the country. These are already zero emission, at least at the point of use.

  At this point, you have either decided that I am waffling far too much, or are curious to know how the railway industry gets itself out of this newly developing pickle. Well, if you are in the first camp, I’m afraid I can’t help you, but enjoy the rest of the internet. If, on the other hand, you find yourself in the second camp, allow me to enlighten you.

  One potential solution is to use an alternative fuel – hydrogen. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, a fact which I’m sure you covered at school, and is also the simplest element, consisting merely of a single proton and an electron. This is all tremendously interesting, but what we are really interested in is that hydrogen can be combined with oxygen in a fuel cell to produce electricity. Electricity which, in sufficient quantities, can be used to power traction motors, and hence a train. Electricity produced with the only waste product being water. Ah, you might say, fascinating, but this all sounds rather sci-fi. The truth is that hydrogen fuel cells are nothing new, and have been used in the space industry for decades, most notably on the Apollo moon missions.

  I must admit, readers, before I get carried away, that although hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, it can be hard to come by here on Earth. It tends to be combined with other things such as natural gas or water, and the extraction process can be energy intense. The good news is that extracting hydrogen from water (a process called electrolysis) only requires electricity, which can come from renewable sources, or during the night when it is not currently being used.

  Hydrogen is not terrifically energy dense, at least in terms of volume, presenting something of a problem to the potential train designer. To get around it, hydrogen is stored in pressurised tanks, fitting much more hydrogen in a smaller space, but even this doesn’t give the energy density of diesel. For a small regional train, this isn’t necessarily a problem. For a freight locomotive… well, we’ll come back to that.

  In Germany, a hydrogen fuel cell powered regional train, one of Alstom’s Coradia range, the iLint, is already under test. It will do 140 km/h, which, in British, is 87 mph, plenty on most smaller regional railways around the country, especially considering the increased acceleration that electric motors provide over the conventional hydraulic transmission of a diesel train. Alstom already have their sights set on bringing a version of this train to the UK.

  That said, it won’t be as simple as just shipping it over on the next appropriately sized ship. The loading gauge, that is, the width and height trains are allowed to be, is narrower in the UK than on the continent. As such, the train will have to be reworked (a result of the lack of energy density) before it will physically fit on the UK network, which will take time.

  Anyhow, support for the idea of hydrogen trains in the UK continues, partly drummed up by a little project from the University of Birmingham. This actually came out of an Institute of Mechanical Engineers challenge, to build a 10 1/4 inch gauge locomotive that can, among other things, recover energy from braking. It was decided to build a locomotive that used a hydrogen fuel cell, mainly, I am told, as batteries would be a rather boring and predictable power source. This locomotive has undergone numerous iterations over the years, but until now was really rather obscure.

  Over the past year or so, the locomotive has been worked on, and she has acquired a new set of clothes, a much more pleasing result than in previous years. Officially, she is the University of Birmingham’s IMechE Railway Challenge entry, but she is now better known as Hydrogen Hero. She has already appeared on the local BBC television news, with yours truly at the controls, at Rail Live 2018, even attracting the Secretary of State for Transport, Chris Grayling. On the 30th July this year, she was again demonstrated by yours truly (on the left, in the orange) to Grayling’s opposite number, Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, Andy McDonald:

  

  In doing demonstration runs, our relatively small team has been raising money for Help for Heroes, by taking donations from passengers. I am sure you’ll agree this is a worthy cause, and somewhat justifies the name, but, importantly, this makes our little locomotive the first revenue-earning hydrogen train in the UK.

  Now, I may have mentioned earlier the freight side of things, and the trouble with energy density. This is not the only problem. Hydrogen fuel cells produce a fairly constant amount of power, which is fine usually, but during high-power moves, such as starting a heavy train or accelerating up a hill, this is not quite enough. A solution is to charge batteries using the fuel cell’s power when the train is stationary, or cruising using little power, and to use the power stored for the high-power situations. One can also use the motors as generators to charge the batteries when the train brakes, increasing energy efficiency. Needless to say, these batteries also take up space.

  A solution to this is to have 2 vehicles, instead of one. In one of these vehicles, you could incorporate hydrogen tanks and batteries, and in the other the power electronics necessary. All the axles of the train could be powered with traction motors, which would also increase the tractive effort of such a locomotive over a conventional one, given that you now have twice . This is the eventual plan with Hydrogen Hero. 

  My point, if I may conclude, is that the technology to do this exists today, and that there is no shortage of ideas, particularly in Europe. I firmly believe that hydrogen is the way forward, and I would urge the policy-makers and railway companies to seriously consider making use of the technology.

  With that, as usual, I shall wish you an excellent day.

   

   

   

   

   

   

  August 4, 2018

  Conservative, DfT, Electric, Future, Hero, Hydrogen, IMechE, Labour, Rail, Railways, Revolution, Trains, Transport, UK, University of Birmingham, Zero-emission

  ---