Electric, Steam, turbines or reciprocal, solar, and hydrogen, best combination of fuels?

[ericmark]

We have seen attempts at a steam turbine powered railway engine fail, and hydrogen fuel cells need very pure hydrogen, be it to heat our home, or for transport, it seems the answer lies in multi-fuel.

However, how ever much this seems the way to go, this idea costs a fortune to install, so be it a steam generator in a railway engine driving the wheels with electric motors, or a hybrid car with petrol and electric, multi-fuel has its cost drawback.

We where I volunteer have a problem, this summer steam trains could not run due to fire risk, and I know some heritage railways are looking at oil fired steam engines.

But we have ways to store energy now which are transforming what we can do, be it hydrogen, or electric batteries, pumping water up the hill side to use latter, or using low power generators combined with batteries, so the generator runs more efficiently.

This youtube video

started to make me think, is there any need to convert steam to electric to drive the wheels, or can it be used directly?

We it seems have seen trains stop due to lack of hydrogen, and damaged fuel cells, but multi-fuel is not easy either, a heritage train converted to run on waste oil, only runs on waste oil, can't mix coal and oil, and even coal, it seems Welsh steam coal did not produce the sparks we get from Polish coal, so we would need USA style smoke stacks, we where I volunteer maybe, we have no bridges or tunnels so height is not a problem, but most those in Wales do have some structure they go under, and whole reason for steam is to look heritage even if there is a petrol compressor hidden to work air brakes, we can't see it.

South Africa and USA used a lot of oil fired steam engines, when you look at the size of some, it is clear no one person could have shovelled enough coal or wood.

Even domestic hot water, using PV solar panels and an immersion heater works better to using sun to heat water directly, losses on a pair of electric cables are far less to water pipes.

But the idea often does not work, I know in Algeria in the 1980's I lived in a portacabin with the box type AC, which also could heat as well as cool the cabin, some used to reverse the coolant flow, and work as a heat pump, but most had simple elements for heating, as when used to heat, the units would freeze up.

At below freezing the air has very little moisture in it, but between zero and 16ºC it can have a load of moisture which can freeze, even on the cooling cycle, at 120ºF we would find not working due to ice build up. To reverse every so often to remove ice, is clearly reducing efficiency.

Anyway, aim it to get people thinking about multi-fuel, and if it can realistic be used?

 

[morqthana]

This youtube video

This YouTube video does not look as if it was made by an intelligent grown-up.

 

[ericmark]

I would agree, it seems to be by some one who is not an engineer, but the idea of putting a couple of railway engines together which already have electric motors to pull a train seems feasible, but there are clearly problems with the run around using two units, and we have already seem the attempt at using steam turbines fail with railway engines, get a toy gyroscope and try moving it around corners, a high speed rotating mass is OK static and in boats, Turbina showed how it could out manurer the reciprocal steam engines of the day, but unless used only on long straight railways, I see a problem.

But railways can carry heavy weights better than road, so the idea of a unit full of batteries next to the traction unit so it can bridge the gap between electrified track and non electrified does make some sense.

As to third rail, OK in a tunnel, but out in the country not a good idea, too dangerous.

 

[morqthana]

I would agree, it seems to be by some one who is not an engineer,

I wasn't commenting on the content.

I was looking at a thumbnail showing a creator who chooses to present himself like thi:

As to third rail, OK in a tunnel, but out in the country not a good idea, too dangerous.

55% of the "London Underground" actually runs on the surface.

 

[big-all]

the idea of putting a couple of railway engines together which already have electric motors to pull a train seems feasible, but there are clearly problems with the run around using two units,

are you reffering to head shunt space or coupled locos ??
coupled compatible locos will be in multiple so any cab in the formation is a driving cab with full control off all systems including power and brakes when in use
i am assuming you are thinking along the lines off train heating without though jumpers for electric or bags[steam pipes] for heating where they may need swapping each end as a double shunt reformation to keep the heating loco coupled to the coaches ??
as for a loco holding the fuel for another loco containing the conversion bit[power generation ] would be as one unit with full through nose end [jumpers and pipes] identical outer end with cabs at the outer end acting like a permenantly coupled multiple unit with no more than "A" and"B" end to remind you what different equipment is to hand at that end

As to third rail, OK in a tunnel, but out in the country not a good idea, too dangerous

whole off the old souther region third rail will be perhaps 95 to 98% in the open
in the future modern systems can on rural lines in new setups allow only sections off third rail in use or imminent use to be live but not yet implimented as far as i know

 

[ericmark]

I look at the idea of static power station v moving power station with interest. Some method is required to turn energy into motion, and also to transport that energy, be it mechanical, hydraulics, or electrical, and it seems electrical is wining.

In the main we are restricted by rules and regulations, there is nothing wrong with the idea of a small say 3 kW generator powering an electric car with battery storage, we see it with off-grid homes where the generator is started by the inverter when the battery drops to a lower level, and then off again at the higher level, so runs at most economic rate. But having an engine running when there is no one in the car, is not permitted, so not down to an engineering problem, but law makers problem.

To ensure no animals can touch a third rail (including the human) is harder than keeping them clear of over head power cables, but in the UK, bridge and tunnel clearances are a problem, we can't do this in the UK, and even in the days of steam, this was not an option, and we had many line side fires, which would have been really a problem with USA prairies, and I know where I volunteer they are actively looking at methods to run steam without the fire risk.

But trains are unusual in a way, as the weight of the loco is required to be high to get the grip on the rails, so unlike a wagon in the road, where the lighter the unladen unit is the better it is, which is why we lost steam wagons, due to tax system at the time, with trains weight can be a plus, as long as it does not break the cast iron rails to the South Wales mine, which caused the first steam hauled train to fail.

The idea as with channel tunnel of driving a whole wagon onto a train so no transshipping delays, does seem a good idea, but clearance again raises it head, but it seems we don't mind cars getting heavier, I remember on of my cars was under 7 cwt and only had three wheels, which resulted in lower road tax and could drive with motor bike licence, but weights seem to have gone up and up.

There are a few, like the Ami which are small and light, but the top speed means not really an option in the UK, as here we still need a driving licence for them.

But electric transport seems to be the answer to many problems, but as to how to get the electric power to the wheels, seems to be a problem.

Back in the 70s I went to a leacture about gas powered cars, and the reason given for not progressing with it, was safety, keeping the gas cold enough to keep it liquid needed insulation, and if that was damaged in a crash, then gas had to be released, which was a fire risk, so it was discontinued, I look at EV batteries and it seems we have the same problem, but for some reason, it is being swept under the carpet.

In real terms, we need to get from A to B at a reasonable speed in safety, and if possible keep down energy used, so the lighter the transport in general the better. However with canals weight does not cause any problem, and with trains a less of a problem to using road transport, so we are basic looking at too extremes of personal transport, the e-bike for local and train for long distance, the problem is how to integrate the two.

Charge points for e-bikes on trains, and bike racks on the back of buses, they use to exist Mold to Ruthin but used so little it was dropped.