Class 60 diesel locomotive set to be powered by steam in new trial

[Reorte]

On 12/06/2024 at 07:59, DY444 said:

Just smacks to me of the latest in a long line of ever more desperate attempts to avoid electrification at any cost.  It obviously makes perfect sense not to deploy a proven system that's been around for decades and which literally the whole world uses when you can do stuff like this instead.

I'll happily take alternatives to electrification though!

[Reorte]

21 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Like all things Hydrogen, its ok until it isnt…

From what I've read the real problem with the Hindenburg was the lacquer used to seal the envelope more than the hydrogen. Rather than being an argument against using hydrogen I think it's become the cause for over-concern about it. And in any case not being able to make something work safely 100 years ago doesn't imply that it can't be done now.

 

Are the risks from hydrogen any worse than the risks of liquid fuels that we've used for years and are happy enough dealing with? Petrol for example pools, with vapour coming off the pools. Hydrogen escapes and disperses pretty rapidly.

[Nearholmer]

Just remember folks, that the “diesel locomotive revolution” on Britain’s main-line railways really began with an experimental/test-bed machine, similar in many ways to this one, when the LMS cobbled a diesel engine and transmission onto an old steam loco chassis. As a loco, it wasn’t much cop, but the learning from it was hugely valuable.

 

Think of the Class 60 bits that are going into this as a convenient way of getting realistic loads on the output of the turbines, rather than what a final design, if one eventuates, might look like.

 

As for a name, it has to be called “Jean Jacques Heilmann”. He was the person who, in the 1890s, conducted a series of really important experiments to explore where the practical and economic boundaries lay between installing fixed electrification, and the use of “thermo-electric” locomotives. His test “thermo electrics” were, as this one, steam-electric, and I think the last of them used a steam turbine (he certainly began with reciprocating steam engines) [Having checked, the turbine version was never built]. Those experiments led on directly to petrol-electric, and then diesel-electric locomotion, and his test locos are often misunderstood by amateurs as a “blind alley”, which they very definitely were not - he was an exceedingly clever and methodical chap.

 

 

Edited June 13 by Nearholmer

[Covkid]

On 12/06/2024 at 10:23, The Stationmaster said:

And Britain's only (I think) 'wave hub'  experimental site that was even connected to the grid and offered an area for testing experimental wave powered generators was never used for its intended purpose due to lack of interest.  For some weird (to me) reason our island home surrounded by immense amounts of natural wave and tidal energy has never shown much inclination to use such a free source of naturally generated power.

 

Probably because free enterprise would struggle to turn large investment potential for the inevitable share holders. 

 

[Hroth]

1 hour ago, Reorte said:

From what I've read the real problem with the Hindenburg was the lacquer used to seal the envelope more than the hydrogen. Rather than being an argument against using hydrogen I think it's become the cause for over-concern about it. And in any case not being able to make something work safely 100 years ago doesn't imply that it can't be done now.

 

Are the risks from hydrogen any worse than the risks of liquid fuels that we've used for years and are happy enough dealing with? Petrol for example pools, with vapour coming off the pools. Hydrogen escapes and disperses pretty rapidly.

 

Hydrogen is pretty safe, as its lighter than air, escapes/leaks all go upwards, rather than pool on the ground. The illustration of the end of the Hindenburg illustrates this clearly, the crew and passenger quarters were underneath the airship and I understand that the deaths and injuries were mainly due to falling from height and the remains of the airship crushing people rather than being incinerated.

 

The phobia about hydrogen has held airship development back ever since, which is a pity as hydrogen can be readily generated and helium cannot.

 

 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

25 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Just remember folks, that the “diesel locomotive revolution” on Britain’s main-line railways really began with an experimental/test-bed machine, similar in many ways to this one, when the LMS cobbled a diesel engine and transmission onto an old steam loco chassis. As a loco, it wasn’t much cop, but the learning from it was hugely valuable.

 

Think of the Class 60 bits that are going into this as a convenient way of getting realistic loads on the output of the turbines, rather than what a final design, if one eventuates, might look like.

 

As for a name, it has to be called “Jean Jacques Heilmann”. He was the person who, in the 1890s, conducted a series of really important experiments to explore where the practical and economic boundaries lay between installing fixed electrification, and the use of “thermo-electric” locomotives. His test “thermo electrics” were, as this one, steam-electric, and I think the last of them used a steam turbine (he certainly began with reciprocating steam engines). Those experiments led on directly to petrol-electric, and then diesel-electric locomotion, and his test locos are often misunderstood by amateurs as a “blind alley”, which they very definitely were not - he was an exceedingly clever and methodical chap.

 

I don't think the LMS were the leaders.  the Hunslet 0-4-0 was built by that company in 1932 asa speculative test ventureand the LMS didn't buy it until a year or so later.  The first Armstrong Whitworth 0-6-0 shunter, with jackshaft drive also appeared in 1932 and another of their 0-6-0 shunter protypes spent the best part of a year 1932-33 undergoing trials on the LNER and in 1934 on the SR.

 

The first 'mainline' British diesel loco also came from Armstrong Whitworth, in 1933, as a 1-Co-! diesel electric 'Universal Locomotive' with an 800hp Sulzer designed engine capable of 70mph and working freight trains of 800 tons or passenger trains of 260 tons.  it was trialled on the LNER including working booked passenger trains but was taken out of use in 1934 following a crankcase explosion.  

As such, albeit not railway owned, it surely qualifies as the first British 'main line diesel' to work passenger trains.

[Hroth]

 

The Armstrong Whitworth "Universal" 1-Co-1 sounds like something Heljan might attempt...  Well, they recently did 10800 so the pool of odd diesels is getting smaller!

 

Is this topic starting to drift?🤔

 

I'm just looking at the article on the LNER site

https://www.lner.info/locos/IC/aw_1co1.php

about the AW loco and I notice that AW were also involved with a steam-turbine-electric loco for the L&Y railway in the early 20s.

 

So!  Back on track! (sort of)

 

Edited June 13 by Hroth

[adb968008]

On 12/06/2024 at 11:02, Nearholmer said:

Except of course that is isn’t an “all eggs in one basket” solution at all.

 

Electricity is simply a very convenient medium for moving energy from one place to another, it can be generated by any one of a multitude of different “eggs”, and used in a multitude of ways.

 

The idea that electricity is an “energy source” totally false, and decrying it on that basis is to confuse yourself out of all measure. 

Eggs are the wrong solution for producing Hydrogen.

 

its more Methane, Nitrogen but admittedly it can smell much worse depending on the human making that gas and how many eggs theyve consumed.

 

Putting a Chicken coup, battery farm inside a 60 might produce the smell but even with all those feathers I dont think it will fly.

 

😀

Edited June 13 by adb968008

[tom s]

Could call the 60 "Leader", for being a co-co dual cab steam locomotive that is destined to never really lead to any change in traction.

[Metr0Land]

On 12/06/2024 at 12:09, adb968008 said:

Like all things Hydrogen, its ok until it isnt…

 

 

 

 

 

AIUI research has shown the fabric coating was covered in something akin to rocket fuel, which when applied to the fabric made it taut until.....  Maybe they should trial some class 66's with hydrogen technology and cover them in a similar manner 🤣

[Metr0Land]

16 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Eggs are the wrong solution for producing Hydrogen.

 

its more Methane, Nitrogen but admittedly it can smell much worse depending on the human making that gas and how many eggs theyve consumed.

 

Putting a Chicken coup, battery farm inside a 60 might produce the smell but even with all those feathers I dont think it will fly.

 

😀

 

Am sure Aardman could make it fly.....

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

I don't think the LMS were the leaders.

I chose my words carefully. There were, of course, diesel shunters being built in small numbers by private industry, and the A-W developments, which trace back via Durtnall to Hellmann, because Durtnall was an assistant/observer on the 1890s tests, but I think it’s fair to credit the LMS in-house conversion as a first for a main-line railway in Britain, and the LMS team was the only one among the Big 4 to have had a really thoroughgoing diesel evaluation programme.

[DY444]

On 12/06/2024 at 08:20, phil-b259 said:

 

Its more about avoiding the need for Government spend.

 

Electrification not only requires Government money to do, it also means NR has to employ more people and stock more spares to look after / maintain the system in the long term.

 

Self powered locos (be they diesel or some other fuel source) are not only funded by the private sector they impose no extra maintenance burdens on Network Rail.

 

Thus if you are a Bean counter in Whitehall obsessing about keeping taxes low then funding electrification is the last thing you want to be doing - with the added bonus that companies doing 'out of the box' or wacky solutions can be praised as examples of 'world leading technician innovation'....

 

Well yes and no.  How much extra will it end up costing the taxpayer in train and track maintenance, fuel and the original capital cost to run the entire GWR IET fleet with diesel alternator sets for its whole life?  The original plan was to have a portion of the fleet electric only to work to Bristol and South Wales and even the bi-modes would have used less diesel.  I'm sure I read the cost of fitment alone was barely less than was saved on curtailing the electrification   How much is it costing on Merseyside to equip some units there with batteries, lug the weight around for 30 years and replace them every n years?  I bet you it's far more than 750m of conductor rail.

 

In the case of this 60 and other assorted excursions into obscure technical dead ends such as hydrogen units etc someone ends up paying.  That someone passes on their costs one way or the other ultimately either to the taxpayer or the travelling public or, in the case of freight, the consumer.  

 

No such thing as a free lunch. 

Edited June 13 by DY444

[woodenhead]

Here's another form of energy storage, it sounds like Hydrogen but it isn't, it is liquid air, created using excess energy from renwables to be released to drive generator turbines when demand is high.  It was being looked at for car propulsion before they scaled the idea up, I guess it would also apply as a means to create power for a locomotive traction engine.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crgg81j2xdpo

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54841528

 

The interesting thing is now that companies are actively looking at alternatives to simply batteries or OHLE, novel ideas are being to gain industrial scale.

[adb968008]

42 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Here's another form of energy storage, it sounds like Hydrogen but it isn't, it is liquid air, created using excess energy from renwables to be released to drive generator turbines when demand is high.  It was being looked at for car propulsion before they scaled the idea up, I guess it would also apply as a means to create power for a locomotive traction engine.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crgg81j2xdpo

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54841528

 

The interesting thing is now that companies are actively looking at alternatives to simply batteries or OHLE, novel ideas are being to gain industrial scale.

Ive got liquid air in my freezer, I put a few blocks of it in my drink to cool it down.

Comes out of the tap, and if I want to turn it back in to air, I put it in the kettle.

 

These ideas all seem to be the same… take excess energy, turn it into heat, or cold.

Ultimately all energy stores are consuming an excess thats wasting in the transfer and reusing the residual later.

 

They dont seem to be creating energy in their own right.

 

At somepoint a gym will power its electrics from the energy stores around peoples waistlines… put a dozen running machines inside a 60, use humans as traction, mop up the sweat and save it for later as well.

 

 

 

[woodenhead]

1 minute ago, adb968008 said:

These ideas all seem to be the same… take excess energy, turn it into heat, or cold.

Ultimately all energy stores are consuming an excess thats wasting in the transfer and reusing the residual later.

 

They dont seem to be creating energy in their own right.

 

 

 

Because you can create too much through renewables without it costing more (beyond the obvious building of the renewable solution) and then use that excess to create a store of other energy.  Of course there will be something lost because creating anything takes energy.  But if you can take 100% of excess energy and turn it into something that can store 50% of that energy which when released creates 40% of the original input energy then it's a positive result.  If it also doesn't require precious or hazardous metals such as those in batteries etc then environmentally it is also a win.

 

The goto solution to energy has been to burn something to make heat to create steam to generate electricity, we're now in a period where we attempt to do it without burning something and there will be a lot of ideas, some will prosper some will fail, but if you don't try you'll never realise a life without burning stuff.

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

Because you can create too much through renewables without it costing more (beyond the obvious building of the renewable solution) and then use that excess to create a store of other energy.  Of course there will be something lost because creating anything takes energy.  But if you can take 100% of excess energy and turn it into something that can store 50% of that energy which when released creates 40% of the original input energy then it's a positive result.  If it also doesn't require precious or hazardous metals such as those in batteries etc then environmentally it is also a win.

 

The goto solution to energy has been to burn something to make heat to create steam to generate electricity, we're now in a period where we attempt to do it without burning something and there will be a lot of ideas, some will prosper some will fail, but if you don't try you'll never realise a life without burning stuff.

200 years ago in this situation…

we’d use wind power to travel to a hot country.

Set up solar panels, guard it from invaders and build a long running subsea cable to our shores.

 

But renewables is as much about separating us from the Mid East / Russian politics as it is about moving on from carbon… 

So instead were staying at home trying to make electric from heat when its 9 degrees and cloudy in the middle of june…

 

I’m trying to grow my own veg, but all its done since April is look at me as its so cold.

 

Wind and water would seem like better ideas to me. But theyve already been invented. Inventing new ideas, selling the IP created abroad for a quick buck seems to be more common… but that doesnt really help the UK and its energy goals.. hows 230001 getting on in the US, generated any sales ?

 

Edited June 13 by adb968008

[woodenhead]

6 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

200 years ago in this situation…

we’d use wind power to travel to a hot country.

Set up solar panels, guard it from invaders and build a long running subsea cable to our shores.

 

But renewables is as much about separating us from the Mid East / Russian politics as it is about moving on from carbon… 

So instead were staying at home trying to make electric from heat when its 9 degrees and cloudy in the middle of june…

 

I’m trying to grow my own veg, but all its done since April is look at me as its so cold.

 

 

Energy security, on one hand setting up a solar farm in the Middle East and piping the power back to the UK mght make sense - the amount of sunlight etc. But isn't that sort of where we are now, dependent on another country for petroleum derived energy and really with all this wind, water and ok sunlight we should be able to find a way to do it better and not be so reliant.  And of course all the issues of the Middle East are rather centred on oil.

 

We should really all be setting up micro solar farms that benefit small groups of houses and decentralise further, but that's another step.

[Michael Hodgson]

Will this loco have regenerative braking?

[Hroth]

On 12/06/2024 at 17:06, Dagworth said:

There's no need to recover any water, the water (steam) is a product of burning the hydrogen. No water is used as a raw material to be heated to produce steam.

 

Andi

 

According to the website, hydrogen is burned in 20 flash boilers to produce high pressure steam, that feeds 4 turbines that drive the loco alternator.  It might be a good thing to condense the turbine exhaust to recover the water and recycle it to reduce the need for too many water stops.

 

Its not a gas turbine system fuelled by hydrogen.

 

[stewartingram]

On 12/06/2024 at 10:40, adb968008 said:

Maybe if the masts had sponsorship, and all kinds of garish paint schemes with advertising boards wedged in between them…

Nothing new in that. Its's called graffiti.

 

😀

 

[Nearholmer]

51 minutes ago, Hroth said:

It might be a good thing to condense the turbine exhaust to recover the water and recycle it to reduce the need for too many water stops.

I’d be amazed if it isn’t condensed, although maybe in a test-bed they can start by simply throwing it up the chimney.

[adb968008]

23 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I’d be amazed if it isn’t condensed, although maybe in a test-bed they can start by simply throwing it up the chimney.

A 60 with a Chimney…. Well i never..

 

[slow8dirty]

It would make one hell of an exclusive edition for either Accurascale or Cavalex.

Edited June 13 by slow8dirty

[Nearholmer]

I keep worrying about the whole thing furring-up, all twenty kettles clogged with limescale, but that’s probably because we have very hard water locally.