With the war on diesel moving onto the railway tracks, we asked Engineer readers for their thoughts on the best options to replace Britain’s diesel train fleet.
The poll came about following a speech by transport minister Jo Johnson, who stated that the government wants to phase out diesel trains on the UK rail network by 2040.
He said that ending reliance on fossil fuels is a priority for the government, both to curb carbon emissions and to improve air quality.
But how should this be taken forward: by electrifying the entire rail network, or introducing onboard energy storage with batteries or hydrogen? Would a combined battery/hydrogen solution work best?
The poll received 701 votes, with 41 per cent of respondents opting for electrification of the whole rail network, and just under a quarter (23 per cent) choosing a combination of batteries and hydrogen. Of those opting for a single energy source, 15 per cent went for onboard storage with batteries, and 13 per cent elected for onboard energy storage with hydrogen. The remaining eight per cent went for none of the above.
The poll has so far helped to generate a great deal of debate, with many stating the case for their preferred source of energy and others asking why government has bothered to raise the issue of taking fossil fuel out of trains.
Phil Mortimer states: “The vacuous comment from the Transport Minister on the intended deletion of diesel fuel demonstrate some serious weaknesses in his understanding of traction economics, train performance and long-term security of supply issues. Has he ever had to sell transport services (freight and passenger in aggressive marketplaces with lots of alternatives?) I doubt it.”
Along with commentators from the automotive world, Jack Broughton wrote in to stand up for diesel, saying: “It is worth considering that diesels are being developed still and can meet the most stringent emissions standards at a very high level of efficiency and reliability.”
Of those favouring a switch from diesel, Rod Evans said: “Advanced fuel cells are the only option that could do the job without massive unaffordable infrastructure alterations.” Sandy added: “Hydrogen is the obvious replacement. It requires no electrical catenary wires, so we don’t have to make our Victorian tunnels taller. No icing, tension or breakage problems and no resistance losses. If hydrogen trains are ‘untested’, why are DB ordering a fleet of them for suburban use in Germany?”
The debate rages on and your opinions are we welcome in Comments below.
Electrification of the whole network is obviously the best solution. Won’t be done though because it’s too expensive. Our little railway (the Uckfield line) has been waiting for electrification since the 1960s. Not expecting any change soon!
Unfortunately, our politicians have very little knowledge when it comes to technology.
Electrification was the ‘obvious best solution’ in the 1960’s, but its not anymore. Technology has moved on and stringing wires or installing third rails – good as they were – are no longer the best way forward.
It could be done a lot cheaper and quicker using different designs and materials for catenary supports (composites requiring zero maintenance over their lives but as robust as steel), different financing models (long term leasing for the catenary and power supply infrastructure) and competitive power supply contracts. This would be a whole new growth market for the power supply sector. The current UK electrification (ohl) always appears to be much more complex, heavy and ugly than comparable projects in Europe and elsewhere. If these issues can be cracked (and they can) then the present ludicrous moratorium on main and secondary line electrification could be dismissed as the aberration it so truly is.
Surely for lines with lower track speeds, third rail electrification is an option? Using trains that are dual voltage to take advantage of overhead wires when available. Also would have less impact on the environment in sensitive areas such as the Highland.
That is mentioned in the article.
I see that the majority have voted for electrification of the whole rail system, but that ignores economic reality, and the current rather embarrassing lack of well directed electrification resources – consider Great Western electrification. The option of hydrogen use appears to be attractive but it is hardly an established proven technology. Of course “in the long term” it may become viable but how long is long?
It depends if an Elon Musk (could there be more than one?) is involved.
The same one whose Tesla cars and batteries are in big trouble??
Was a bit short of options there, to be honest. I’d have gone for “combination of electrification and batteries” had it been available. Perhaps that was what the “on-board energy storage with batteries” option was supposed to represent.
Not sure about hydrogen. High pressure and explosive. Generating hydrogen from water and then combining it with atmospheric CO2 to synthesise a less volatile fuel might be safer at the point of use, albeit not as efficient.
Electrification of the whole network is obviously the ambitious aim. Likewise with road transport… But this again raises the issue of generation capacity in the UK. Question: when are we really going to start building the new power stations needed to replace those currently being phased-out, AND to provided the extra current (and upgraded distribution networks) needed to go all-electric ?
I went for electrification, but with a caveat, it should be merged with other technologies to get the best for the rail network, users and the environment. It also seems to me that government like to make bold statements that have an un- realistic time period of implementation, it keeps them in the public eye so that come the next election they once again get voted in , to mare more silly statements.
Like many things that the government (who ever’s in power) say this country needs, do we need to totally get rid of diesel trains? for inner cities and large towns I can see the advantage but when running across open moor or the highlands with low population density I cannot see the point, unless it is going to be cheaper.
I would like to point out that one of the country’s newest trains is a steamer! Great to look at but not really a viable form of locomotion especially for the cities.
Solar Trains 🙂 Seriously though there was a study to install solar panels on the railway embankments to feed directly into the overhead power lines. There is also a company that is converting Diesel Electric commuter trains to Battery Electric trains which is a very low cost option as you are re-using existing rolling stock and just removing the Diesel Power pack and replacing with a battery which powers the existing electric drivetrain.
A feature on this study will be appeasring on the website in the next few days; it was published in our February print issue. At ther mopment it looks mainly at feeding the power into third-rail systems rather than overhead catenaries, as this would not require rectiftying the DC ouput of the solar panels into AC.
Methinks you mean ‘inverting DC to AC’.
I did wonder whether I’d got the right word. My electrical engineering is rusty.
I think hydrogen storage would give a nice decentralized opportunity. Not relying on any “outside” supply, at least for as long as the tank is full. Trains are nicely bonded to the railway net, making the logistics for fuel distribution easier, if not a pipe network (like for natural gass) is already in place.
Investment costs for any of the technologies are huge, but onboard storage of capacity, being it batteries or hydrogen, keeps them out of any rail maintenance equation. Might make the whole thing more affordable.
Which ever is the lowest cost
…..install solar panels on the railway embankments to feed directly into….
reminds me of a lovely humorous suggestion in the early days of railway that novels, newspapers, magazines should be printed (in large type-face of course) and run along those same embankments so that passengers could look out and read as the train went along! And it wasn’t April 1st!
Stuart, you show an illustration of Arriva’s hybrid diesel-electric train, the Flirtino, but you do not give a box to choose this as an option. The announcement yesterday was that the government wants to phase out DIESEL-ONLY trains.
The Flirtino runs on Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO) renewable biodiesel before switching to battery-charged electricity for parts of the track without electrification.
I guess I have to choose ‘None of the above’.
Jo Johnson was clear that disel-electric hybrids would only be a stopgap opotion, althouggh units with the diesel engine replaced by a battery would be suitable for long-term use; and these are included in the options.
Hydrogen is the obvious replacement.
It requires no electrical catenary wires, so we don’t have to make our Victorian tunnels taller. No icing, tension or breakage problems and no resistance losses.
If hydrogen trains are ‘untested’, why are DB ordering a fleet of them for suburban use in Germany?
Hydrogen is easily generated and transportable, has no atmospheric pollution, can be handled safely , no brown staining of the railway and, being the fuel for electric motors, makes the rail system quieter.
What’s not to like?
Why are we persisting in treading the long road one foot after the other? Can we not be innovative and forward-looking, instead of trying to catch up 50 years to install a system that will be obsolete in 20 years?
Shame about the name – could be misinterpreted I think. Obviously any on-board storage system will need recharging, and infrastructure for this will be required.
I voted for a combination of battery and hydrogen, mainly to give a greater flexibility and possibly having batteries would provide an emergency power should the hydrogen run out. I’m thinking about a situation in bad weather when a train in a rural area may become stuck and the anticipated journey time which would have allowed a replenishment of hydrogen at the next stop cannot be achieved. I still have great concerns regarding power generation, and distribution as with all of us driving around in EV’s.
Battery and hydrogen are indeed alternatives to electrification. Battery power is already being tested by British company VivaRail led by former rail manager Adrian Shooter and Alstom is already running hydrogen powered trains on trial.
Solar panels along the trackside will get covered in brake dust, unless cleaned frequently. Several years ago my daughter lived in a house which backed onto a railway line (electrified) and her back fence was covered in brown dust and windowsills needed frequent cleaning.
If the train had batteries it would not be necessary to electrify the whole network, just to have long enough sections electrified so that the batteries could be recharged sufficiently for those sections which were not electrified.
“Self-cleaning” panels, which only need a rinse to shed dust, are available commercially.
I can see it now, today’s excuse on Southern Rail, “the wrong sort of leaves/snow on the solar panels”.
Regenerative braking will cut down on brake dust, but I thought Electric trains did this already but I could be wrong.
By 2040, the inadequate 2 carriage, class 150 units used between Bristol and Worcester will be about 60 years old and I expect they will be given a new franchise coat of paint and told to keep going as there is no money.
Unfortunately for those who think that third-rail electrification is a good idea – and you are right of course, especially in urban areas where there is already a lot of it (such as the Uckfield line and Ashford to Hastings) – the Office of Rail and Road won’t allow it because they think it is dangerous. Despite the title of the organisation, they seem incapable of treating the risks on the road (3000 deaths per year) in the same way as risks on the railway (10 years with no passenger deaths from accidents). Coupled with the ridiculous extension of clearances required for overhead electrification (one of the main reasons for cost over-runs on Great Western and Scottish electrification schemes), this has all but ruled out new electrification on the UK. I am not sure that total electrification would ever have been realistic – imagine trying to electrify the line from Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh for 4 trains per day (the economics will never work) – but for much of the country, partial electification and batteries was probably the best solution. The problem with hydrogen is storage and distribution and, I believe, it is energy intensive to produce, although its use is pollution free. If hydrogen is the answer why is the automotive industry not using it?
The simple answer is, of course, distribution. Trains having well-defined routes, stopping points and built-in waiting times would be easier to supply with hydrogen than replicating the petrol distribution network, as would be necessary for roads vehicles. We’ve covered this in detail in The Engineer.
The vacuous comment from the Transport Minister on the intended deletion of diesel fuel demonstrate some serious weaknesses in his understanding of traction economics, train performance and long term security of supply issues. Has he ever had to sell transport services (freight and passenger in aggressive market places with lots of alternatives?) I doubt it. Ironically HMG seems intent on deleting diesel stock but is busy acquiring bi-modal trains they specified which will be more complex, heavy, costly to operate, maintain and service given they will be carrying diesel power packs which will not be needed for train operations when operating under the wires. They also imply the need for the retention of a diesel fuel logistics system unless train to train re-fuelling is advocated. The DfT and Network Rail have poisoned the case for more electrification to create a national system and not a series of radial lines serving London by their incompetence and failures on the GW. Other better schemes should have been developed ahead of this one which has proved to be a real foul up at many levels. The NAO report on this debacle clearly pointed the finger at both the DfT and Network Rail on this but they carry on regardless. The responsibility lies with the DfT and Network Rail for messing up big time leading to yesterday’s sticking plaster announcement .
The Network Rail Strategy (another one) announced today specifically mentions the lack of electrification as a constraint on rail freight potential. Another shot in the foot.
Rail electrification could be a lot cheaper using different lighter, cheaper and longer lived support structures leased and linked to power supply contracts new to the generators and suppliers irrespective of generation input type. This would break the model of high front end costs which seem to worry government (shades of a panic in the 1960s as the WCML scheme was delayed under the Modernisation Plan ) . The option of fuel cells, hydrogen and fuel cells smacks of jam tomorrow as unproven technology sets for decades. Mainline electrification is a proven technology set. (Other countries are electrifying to garner the advantages it confers. Perversely in the UK we seem set against it for bizarre and unfathomable reasons. Perhaps lines could be electrified by major infrastructure investors sensing long term stable returns and with the surety that the kit could not be sent off shore.
Electrification gives the advantage of re-generation and short term power boost for acceleration. No other mode of transport has this yet but the rail industry has failed to capitalise on these endowments.
Lying over al of this is the shadow of HS2 which will be of little benefit to much of the country. The current scheme is confused over options North Of Birmingham to serve the East Midlands and South Yorkshire. My suspicion is some bean counter suggested cancelling the MML project to await the benefits of HS2 this year, next year, sometime, never so any rational national spatial planning strategy, transport and energy policy goes up in pixy dust. Suggesting bi-modal options for very high speed trains to avoid tunnel works just reinforces the view that the understanding of routine train operating, technical, economic and commercial performance is not understood by government.
are you suggesting that a history degree DOESN’T make someone ideally qualified for this ministerial position ?
Following on from PMs detailed assessment of the political mess-up that has happened on our railways and is happening to the UK power generating system as we watch incredulously.
It is worth considering that diesels are being developed still and can meet the most stringent emissions standards at a very high level of efficiency and reliability. Throwing this proven and successful technology out on the basis of unlikely carbon dioxide savings and hopefully-successful partially-developed technologies is a further example of the current UK lunatic policy of self-strangulation while the rest of the world continues as before.
Tom Foreman: “There is also a company that is converting Diesel Electric commuter trains to Battery Electric trains which is a very low cost option as you are re-using existing rolling stock and just removing the Diesel Power pack and replacing with a battery which powers the existing electric drivetrain.”
I believe this is the way to go. I’m not happy about mixing batteries and hydrogen on a train; and I have a shrewd suspicion that the public would be very wary about it – or even just hydrogen.
As for recharging the batteries, I’m not a rail person but, purely on the grounds of cost, I would think that it was most economical to provide new overhead sections where convenient, rather than third rail where it does not already exist.
Hi Tony, it looks like a good solution, if you’re interested there is a link to an amusing look at the technology by Robert Llewellyn, or Kryten from Red Dwarf 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s4heZe7ChM
Advanced fuel cells are the only option that could do the job without massive unafordable infrastructure alterations. If just a fraction of the money given to green energy producers by government, out of tax payers pockets, was spent on research into fuel cells and nuclear, we would not be having to even think about the energy choices for the future.,
Batteries? Seriously? Environmental Nimbyism at its worst! I despair.
Electrification is the obvious solution, but failing that, diesel trains with proper emission control are the only other currently viable solution.
Hydrogen fuel cell technology is another possible option, although more work needs to be done before this is viable.
It’s got to be none of the above as none of the listed alternatives are currently viable and won’t be for potentially decades…
A question: is there a fire risk with hydrogen technologies ?
Yes Hydrogen Fuel Truck Crash happened in the USA the other day, if you could pipe it in rather than transport by truck it may be safer…
http://abc7.com/hydrogen-tank-explosion-on-semi-truck-prompts-evacuations/3068078/
The electrification of the rail system should not be by overhead lines, but by using dedicated carriages that contain batteries, that can be decoupled and recharged while the train has a new fully charged battery carriage coupled. That way there are no overhead lines, and no delays. We recently had the situation were the new overhead lines lost power, and the whole train system came to a halt. Nothing moved, by each train having its own battery power supply, if there is a loss of power it only effects the one train, not the whole network. As a defence issue it is a much preferred option. It is also much cheaper to remove the diesel motor and replace with batteries, or leave the space vacant, and rely in the attached battery carriage. The much lower cost will mean it can be implemented quickly, one train at a time. The battery carriages can be recharged by using renewable energy, and if for some reason a train runs out of electricity, they can easily be taken to the train and attached, giving it a power supply to continue its journey with the minimum time delay. This is a low cost practicable way of giving a fast result with the minimal disruption to the traveling public.
Has anyone costed this option and also assessed the performance capabilities of battery powered trains. I suspect not. They just do not have the energy density to move trains at speed over long distances. Conventional electrification can do this without all of the complications of dropping batteries in/out (time and cost?). Who pays for the enhanced infrastructure to recharge said batteries. A full life cost analysis would demonstrate that batteries, fuel cells and bionic duckweed just don’t do it.
Steam trains would yield the same impact.
Cheap and poorly designed catenary systems are a recipe for disaster. In the case of the appalling GW scheme it was not cheap but badly implemented and has poisoned the case for further mainline electrification. We are now in a similar situation to Moldova where electrification was sanctioned, mast erected and the cables set up. The whole lot was then cancelled. So we are on par with Europe’s Cuba in this.
The Swiss, Dutch, Germans, Scandinavians and Russians operate overhead line powered trains through very severe weather and these don’t appear to be as vulnerable as those designed and built in the UK. Perhaps we have something to learn from them. This will of course be entirely refuted by NRail and the DfT.
The Swiss, Dutch,
. Perversely in the UK we seem set against it for bizarre and unfathomable reasons.
They may be bizarre but are certainly not unfathomable. “Which decision -and that is throughout all elements of so-called Government in the national interest- will give the greatest benefit and advantage to one political party? That is the route chosen, regardless of the effect on us all: and indeed regardless of the absolute lunacy, in technology terms, of the decision? Am I the only person who has noticed? Somehow I don’t believe so. Deal with that in infrastructure terms and who knows what might be achieved.
Nuclear powered trains? Highest energy density for a fuel
Mike above and many others, seamed to have got it. The problem doesn’t lie with the rail sector, though some modernisation is desperately required. The problem is government, ‘for the good of the people’ and other sound-bite nonsense. The rail network is in private hands, for better or worse, and as such not run directly by government. Decisions of this nature should be kept as far away from Whitehall as possible, but politicians being what they are can’t help but interfere for the greater headline.
If the government want to get rid of diesels, why stop electrification in the middle of nowhere at Chippenham? This leaves the rest of the line to Bristol Temple Meads and that from Bristol Parkway to Bristol Temple Meads as diesel only. If these stretches of line are ever electrified, the costs will have doubled and all the skilled workers been laid off, so there will be no saving.
Battery storage to get a train across non-electrified sections of a mainly electrified network is not a barking mad idea: for an energy density of 250 Wh/kg you could run a 3000 kW motor for an hour with a 12 tonne battery pack. This could be towed behind the engine rather like a coal tender for a steam engine. If you need more range than that, because of lack of investment in electrification, bi-mode trains as described above will do the job – but why not run use natural gas fuelled, spark ignition I.C. engines to power the engine when electricity is unavailable, rather than diesel?
Is the 3000Kw electric motor its peak power demand or its average? I don’t know but from anecdotal evidence sat on an electric train they would only need peak power to set off and accelerate up to cruising speed and then use less power to cruise, maybe more to get up inclines but then coast down inclines and regenerate power back under breaking at the next station. Presumably the 12 Tonne battery would last longer than an hour under this sort of usage and re-charge when the train encounters electrified parts of the track?
It may well be … my rough calculation was simply to check you wouldn’t need to devote half the train to carriages for the battery packs …
Battery technology is proving to be the best technology for transport for journey times of up to an hour.
As prices come down, it should be quite affordable to build an electric train with a 1 hour battery range that will allow it to cover branch lines. Meanwhile, the electrification process can continue to make sure that in future no line is more than 1 hour from an electric line. This would include adding short stretches of electrification at terminus stations, so trains can charge up for their return.
Something to look forward to in my 96th year!
Southern Region had third rail electric trains when I was a boy. Progress? Hey Ho
A combination of battery powered trains, and extended electrification, and seamless switching between the two. Electrify longish straightish sections with few bridges, and use battery power for the gaps.
Electrification just extends the exhaust pipe. Hydrogen generation currently is done by the hydrogenation of methane, you still have carbon emissions. PWR nuclear generation is too damn expensive, and in any case will not come on stream till my grand daughter gets to retire. The problem can be mitigated with bi-modal engines but the problem has no solution, other than the collapse of civilization as we know it.
Having worked directly in the hydrogen industry it will be a cold day in hell when I welcome a hydrogen-powered train into any densely populated area. Sure, it’s a nice clean solution (and the surrounding environment has to be so the fuel cell catalysts don’t get poisoned), but the amount of on-board hydrogen that would be required and the sheer ease with which any nefarious individual or terrorist could get close enough to it makes this in my mind to be a complete non-starter.
Don’t get me wrong, hydrogen is great in the right place for the right reasons. But so is diesel/biodiesel, but I guess it’s too late to explain that to our government. So if we’re talking electric-only then it’ll have to be electrification of the network. Or rather the abandonment of any rural or semi-rural lines and electrification of the rest.
Batteries in tenders gets my vote. The tender can be exchanged for a rechrarged one (or the batteries could be changed robotically if time allows at the terminus of the rail line where the recharging facilities will be located. At a stroke this removes the need for maintenance of overhead wires or third rails resulting in increased availability of the railway network for increased freight trains at night enabling the much needed reduction in heavy freight on the road network.
Batteries in tenders with electric drive will also allow regenerative braking.
When the batteries are no longer suitable for use on the railways they could have a second life as storage for intermittent power from wind and solar and other renewables.
I think the brown staining of ballast and buildings etc alongside railways is due to rusting of the microscopic particles of steel that are generated from the brakes and the wearing of steel wheels on steel rails. This problem can only be solved iwhen contactless and hence maintenance free magnetic levitation eventually replaces centuries old streel wheels on steel rails.
Batteries in tenders is operationally messy. Batteries in cassettes that could be changed by equipment mounted below the platform, now that would work.
Perhaps better to remove and replace the battery cassette from above. Lifting of containers from ships comes to mind.
Ah, the delights of those leaves on the line. The pick-up shoe does a fine job of turning those leaves into a nice insulating paste.
So because a politician says he thinks ‘something is a stop-gap option’, we can’t consider it? In all likelihood a bi-mode setup is more practical, cost effective and probably environmentally sound than a battery, which would need to be huge, and especially so for a freight train. What I would infer from what he has said is that bi-mode trains using onboard generators are a viable option, and the generators inside them can be updated as and when necessary. For example, a train using LNG or, even better, bio-LNG or CNG is a far more flexible and realistic proposition, especially when one considers that we are starting to see growth in the use of these fuels in heavy-duty on road vehicles and significant emissions reductions as a result. Engine technology itself is improving too, and, in the last couple of years, the pace at which it has has astonished even me.
My point here is that the current rhetoric of many well-meaning people is a ‘one size fits all’ strategy. Trying to make everything run on electricity would, in my opinion, put us in real danger of not only failing to meaningfully reduce our carbon emissions but also of insecurity in terms of how we procure the energy we need. Batteries seem to be the ‘go-to’ buzzword at the moment but there are various technologies out there that deserve due consideration and, perhaps rather ironically, quite a few of them use internal combustion engines – which in and of themselves are not necessarily the ‘evil creatures’ they are seemingly portrayed as (in my opinion). An efficient engine running on a renewable / low-carbon fuel is a very useful tool to have if we are going to sustainably reduce our emissions. I think that the current, unfair, negative attitude towards engine technology needs to change, but equally those who flout the rules and leave trails of smoke behind them need to stop too, as it gives a bad name to the millions of engineers working to make modern engines a 21st century technology.
Sorry if that is a bit of a rant and slightly off-topic, but I feel that certain technologies are being scapegoated unfairly – and without wanting to sound too ‘fluffy’, surely we ought to support ALL cleaner, more efficient technologies and recognise the strenghts and weaknesses of each, and not engage in what I percive as favouritism.
Incidentally, a good example of modern engine technology and renewable fuels can be found at the Leyland filling station in Lancashire, that has reduced the emissions of HGVs by 84% well-to-wheel using sustainably produced biogas and a new generation of engines. It ought to get more attention than it is.
This is not a technical question (though the various options are). The announcement is just political posturing. 2040 is so far off that we can’t see what will turn out to be the best answer by then. For now we need to test as many alternatives as possible so that we have the necessary data on which to base an informed answer.
There are several things to think about. One is that the very latest diesel designs are much cleaner with almost no pollution.
Overhead gantries are subject to the vicissitudes of the weather, particularly winds. The safe large- storage batteries we need are still largely in development. Hydrogen at least will be stored “like” diesel on board the trains and would not require a large expensive infrastructure like electricity or batteries-which would still require large power stations.
Wind issues should not be a problem with well designed, engineered and installed overhead line systems. We seem very prone to this type of failure compared to other countries which experience high wind conditions. Lessons need to be learned to make the system integrity higher as well as being cost effective and involving less heavy metal.
I’d propose hydrogen for the mainline, as it would be cheaper and way less ugly than festooning wires all over the place.
I wonder if for goods yards and maybe even branch lines liquified air created with renewable electricity could be the power source – I imagine faster to refuel and greener than batteries, but uncertain whether the energy density is great enough. Plenty of space for solar panels on engine sheds as well as just taking grid surplus to liquify the air at the yard.
Yes I voted for electric but Diesel still has a great future not just for trains but for vehicles generally. I am not a believer in the health issues with Diesel or the CO2 debate. If you believe the latest climate reports then we should be adding CO2 not taking it away to offset the Ice Age which some say we are already in! Heres a thought. Why not go back to steam but using not coal but a small modular reactor? Maybe not. The lovely smell of steam engines wouldn’t be the same though would it !!
My electrical engineering is rusty. Perhaps not making a good connection better!
I read these many rational and well thought through comments: each aimed at enhancing the debate and thence the solution. And then I look at what our so-called leaders and betters use to develop the ascent of society-adversarial angst- and I pinch myself to ensure that in this century of technology we continue to allow these buffoons , these intellectual and technical pigmys to mis-use their power (actually its ours!)
The idea of a battery in an attached trailer: used by the earliest tramways -and only altered when the slinging of wires around cities was allowed. having driven the Seaton (Devon) Tramway for three years until I literally ‘came off my trolley’-a offence for which there was only one decent thing for a driver to do -surrender their key…I do recognise the merit of separation of traction system from power supply.
The rail network is not in private hands – it was nationalised years ago which might explain why rail network modernisation is in such a mess.
I remember going on holiday to Deeside in Aberdeenshire in the late 50s and the line from Aberdeen to Ballater was run by a battery version of the then current Derby Lightweight DMU. This had charging points at both ends of the line and sufficient layover time was provided to charge what I suppose were lead acid batteries. I think the voltage used was 110v and in conversation it emerged that the main cause of unreliability was the 110v to 24v rotary converter used to power the lights! I believe that this unit still exists and is in the course of restoration.
What advances have we made since then. I suppose any new unit will be hailed as a great pioneer. We must be able to make a much better job having has 60 years to think about it.
To assist the distance travelled between charging, the roof tops of the carriages could be fitted with solar panels, and savinious type wind turbines such as described in : http://www.ettridgewindturbines.com could also be mounted on the top of the carriages. That is a low profile version, so the train could move under bridges and tunnels. Before you laugh, a small single version of the Ettridge Wind Turbine produced some serious electric current mounted on top of a car traveling at 90 Km/Hr. The wind turbines could have air scoops on top of the carriages with the turbines mounted below the height of the carriage.