Future Railway Energy Supply and Motive Power Systems

In 2012, a Rail Technical Strategy’s CDP was published. It was a joint consultation between rail experts, which identified 12 key capabilities that railway needed to develop on to meet the increasing passenger capacity demand and focusing on sustainability. This was a challenge for shifting the culture of rail sector which invested minimal on RD&T to investing in RD&T which focuses on improving productivity and performance of the rail transport. Industry like Network Rail has pledged to exploit the value of approx. £1.3Bn per annum toward the end of CP6 in conjunction with Shift2Rail programme [1].

A hierarchy has been setup and major technical develop programmes have been identified as follows [1] –

CCS
Energy
Infrastructure
Rolling Stock Energy
Information
Customer Experience

These programmes are designed for delivering key outcomes as follows [1] –

Decarbonisation – Halve Carbon: Optimal Energy Use
Double Capacity
Improving Customer Experience
Halving Cost

1.1 Railway Industry need for De-carbonisation

U.K government plans to electrify the rail network to cut emissions, this is costly approach and Britain has been heavily reliant on coal-based electricity production. As reported by the guardian newspapers, Diesel trains are still more responsible for CO2 emissions than electric trains [2] . Network Rail owns 20,000 miles of track out of which only 40% is currently electrified. Some prominent electrification projects are currently underway like GWEP, EGIP and Gospel Oak to Barking, which are successfully being executed but involves high cost as it relies on electrification infrastructure [3]. The transport including trains and cars account for 26% of U.K CO2 emissions [4]. As mentioned above, U.K government has ambitious by 2040 to reduce these hydrocarbon emissions significantly by introduction of new technologies like hybrid and/or alternative fuels [4]. It is also not cost-effective in some cases to electrify railway for which discontinuous electrification, intelligent energy source and alternative fuels are significantly researched and invested. For all the above-mentioned reasons, railway industry is no less.

For which Network Rail along with joint consortium of railway experts have identified the 12 RD&T key capabilities and approx. £228 million has been pledged towards optimal energy usage like intelligent energy storage and distribution technologies for delivering the decarbonisation agenda. The optimum energy use can be further broken into aspects like Smart Grid Technologies, Battery/Dual Power Systems, Non-Diesel Alternatives and Transferring energy [1].

Optimal Energy Usage – The major milestone to achieve here is decarbonisation by introduction of technologies like hybrid operation. Hybrid trains enables for discontinuous electrification on non-electrified rail tracks and uses electrical traction to run on network without overhead electrification [1].

Thus, the focus is to significantly reduce railway’s carbon footprint by investing and investigating into renewable energy systems like hydrogen and biofuels etc. Likewise, BCRRE has demonstrated via their ‘Hydrogen Pioneer’ – U. K’s first hydrogen powered train for an IMechE Railway Challenge [2].

1.2 Hydrogen – Tomorrow’s Fuel

The decarbonisation agenda is plausibility with help of the first element of the periodic table, i.e. hydrogen with atomic number 1. Hydrogen is known to be generated by using techniques like electrolysis or chemical processes [6]. It is one of the purest form of energy as it is combustible at high concentration and generates electricity and heat at the expense of ‘pure water H₂O’ as exhaust. A fuel cell is highly considered for powering the vehicles as it produces greener electricity. Some of the European countries have already established that hydrogen operated trains are not only cheaper as compared to diesel and electric but greener as well [6]. From an operation prospective, hydrogen train can be utilised in no different ways as compared diesel like hydrogen shares similar refuelling patterns with diesel. From traction prospective, hydrogen trains can achieve similar travel ranges, speed and hours of operation when compared diesel [6]. This assignment focuses on one of most common modes of hydrogen production, i.e. SMR – Steam Methane Reforming [6].

1.3 Aims and Objectives

Aim

To develop concept design for powering the train of the next generation for TOCs in the U.K. To demonstrate the agenda of decarbonisation and application of CSM-RA for any improvement to the existing rolling stock.

Objectives

To show overall train performance specification which includes calculations of train performance.
To demonstrate a safety case by carrying out CSM-RA for the overall changes to the train performance adhering to the agenda of decarbonisation.

1.4 Methodology

In this assignment DMU is chosen as a benchmark train. The following performance calculations is shown for the DMU –

Traction Performance –With Full Payload (Crush Load)
Traction Performance – Without Payload

Then a prospective of replacing the diesel as primary source with hydrogen for meet the decarbonisation agenda and the following performance calculation is shown for hydrogen-hybrid train –

Traction Performance –With Full Payload (Crush Load)
Traction Performance – Without Payload
Braking Performance – With Full Payload
Energy Consumption.

A comparative analysis between DMU and hydrogen hybrid train. A CSM-RA for introduction of hydrogen fuel technology on the chosen vehicle as shown in section 2.

2 Vehicle Type

The British DMU Class 170 Turbostar is the chosen vehicle type built by Bombardier. This DMU entered service in 2001 and has been used by some busiest TOCs like Abellio ScotRail and GTR [7]. For this assignment the following train characteristics were used for train performance calculations –

Table 1 Train/Power Module Characteristics [7] [8] [9] [10]

Train/Power Module Characteristic
Axle Per Car	4
Vehicle Width (m)	2.69
Vehicle Height (m)	3.77
Tare Mass (tonne)	168.50
Payload (tonne)	21.51
Total Mass (tonne)	190.01
Maximum Acceleration (m/s²)	0.50
Maximum Speed (mph)	100
Diesel Tank Capacity (L)	1500
Energy Available in Diesel Tank (kWh)	14910
Body Structure	Welded Aluminium
Power Unit Type	1x MTU 6R 183TD 13H
Unit formation (4 Car)	DMCL-MS-MS-DMCL
Total Seating Capacity	262
Traction Type	Diesel
Fleet Configuration Car Units	2 x 4
Motor RPM (revs/s)	1900

The Class 170 has a basic design and is a preferred regional commuter. The body structure is made up of welded aluminium. Class 170 has subclasses from 170/1 to 170/6. The total fleet size currently held by Eversholt Rail Group is 27 and chosen configuration for this paper is 4 car unit with total capacity of 262 passengers [7].

2.1 Class 170 – Performance Calculation

Using the train characteristic as mentioned above, performance of the Class 170 was calculation using with/without payload of the train.

How was payload of the train calculated?

As the 2x 4 car configuration was used, the total seating capacity was 262. Assuming the train was full capacity with average person weight as 70 Kg and each carrying average luggage of 15 kg each, the total was 85 kg per seat. Hence, the payload was –

$Payload = 262 x 85 kg = 22.27 tonnes$

2.1.1 Traction Performance – With Full Payload (Crush Load)

The Class 170 has 2 DMU, each containing a diesel engine each as represented by train configuration of DMCL-MS-MS-DMCL [9]. At full payload, i.e. the crush load, the following detailed performance has been calculated –

Table 2 Traction Performance at Crush Load of Class 170 – DMU

Parameters	Values	References
Number of Cars	4	2 x 4 Car Units – Formation
Tare Mass (tonnes)	168.5
Rotary Allowance	0.12	12% as body of train is Welded Aluminium
Payload (tonnes)	22.27
Effective Mass (tonnes)	210.99	M_e = Tare Mass (1 + Rotary Allowance) +Payload
Top Speed (mph)	100
Speed of Train (m/s)	44.70
Number of Axles per Car	4
Acceleration of Train (m/s²)	0.5
Wheel Diameter (m)	0.9	[11]
*Davis Equation R = A + Bv +Cv*²
A	4219.80	20 N/tonne
Bv	2.68	B – 0.06 [10]
Cv²	11.99	C – 0.0067 [10]
Train Resistance (kN)	4.23
Traction Force (T.F) (kN)	105.50	(F = M_ex a)
T.F_max(kN)	109.73	T.F + Train Resistance
P_max(MW)	2.45	T.F_maxx V/2
Available Adhesion (µ)	0.12	(µ > 0.12 UK Passenger Train)
T.E (kN)	248.38	µ x me x g & g = 9.81 m/s²
Required Traction Force (kN) %	44	(T.F_max/T.E)
Total Number of Axles	16
Motored Axles	7	16 x 44%
Power of Each Motored Axle (kW)	347	P_max/7
Motor RPM (revs/s)	1900
Motor Angular Velocity (ɷ_m – rad/s)	199
Wheel Angular Velocity (ɷ_w – rad/s)	99	ɷ_m/ɷ_w
Gear Box Ratio	2
Motor Torque (kNm)	3.49
Wheel Torque (kNm)	6.99
Auxillary Power (kW)	30	This an assumption
Maximum Engine Output (kW)	377	347 + 30

2.1.2 Traction Performance – Without Full Payload

At tare mass, i.e. the empty load, using the same methodology and train characteristics as shown in table 2, the key performance details are as mentioned in table 3 below –

Table 3 Traction Performance at Tare Mass of Class 170 – DMU

Parameters	Values	References
Tare Mass (tonnes)	168.5
Rotary Allowance	0.12	12% as body of train is Welded Aluminium
Payload (tonnes)	0
Effective Mass (tonnes)	188.72	M_e = Tare Mass (1 + Rotary Allowance)
Train Resistance (kN)	3.79
Traction Force (T.F) (kN)	94.36	F = M_ex a
T.F_max(kN)	98.15	T.F + Train Resistance
P_max(MW)	2.19	T.F_maxx V/2
Available Adhesion (µ)	0.12	µ > 0.12 UK Passenger Train
T.E (kN)	222.16	µ x me x g & g = 9.81 m/s²
Required Traction Force (kN) %	44	T.F_max/T.E
Motored Axles	7	16 x 44%
Power of Each Motored Axle (kW)	310	P_max/7
Gear Box Ratio	2
Motor Torque (kNm)	3.12
Wheel Torque (kNm)	6.25
Auxillary Power (kW)	30	This an assumption
Maximum Engine Output (kW)	340	347 + 30

3 Class 170 – Hydrogen Powered

For meeting the requirement of decarbonisation, a cleaner and greener alternative fuel, i.e. hydrogen as discussed in section 1.2 is considered for this assignment. The drive system of the concept design is as shown in figure 1 below –

Figure 1 Class 170 – Hydrogen Powered System [10]

3.1 Traction Motor – PMSMs

From figure 1, the chosen traction motor for the conceptual design is a PMSMs. A hybrid of induction and brushless DC motor, PMSMs are emerging motor type for traction designer it has great advantage of high power density as compared to induction motors at a similar rating. They are light weight and have smaller diameters, as light weight helps for saving energy by lowering the effective mass. Also, the PMSMs enables dynamic braking at lower speeds which will be beneficial for regional commuting purpose of the Class 170. [12]

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!

Essay Writing Service

3.2 Hydrogen Power Plant & Weight

From table 2, the required power is 377 kW for DMU. 7 Hydrogenic’s Celerity 60 kW will be used delivering a combined power of 420 kW. This has expected lifetime of 10000+ hours and has a combined mass and volume of 1.925 t and 2.03 m³ [13]. However, the required power will reduce when replaced by hydrogen system, saving energy and thus, the carbon emissions.

2x 4 car configuration has 2 DMUs. This has to be replaced with hydrogen tank and fuel stack cells stack as shown in figure 1 above. 2x DMU will weigh approximately 8.4 tonnes [13]. Replacing this with 14 Hydrogenic’s Celerity weighs 3.85 t.

Therefore, new effective mass (M_e) –

Table 4 Hydrogen Pack Replaced Effective Mass

Effective Mass (t)	210.99	from Table 2
2x Diesel Engine System (t)	8.4	[13]
New Effective Mass (t)	202.59
% Weight Decrease	4%

3.3 Hydrogen Powered Replaced System

Upon replacing the DMU s with hydrogen system, 4% weight is reduced. However, the required power is reduced when replaced by hydrogen system, saving energy and thus, the carbon emissions.

Table 5 Traction Performance – Hydrogen Powered System Class 170

Parameters	Values	References
Tare Mass (tonnes)	168.5
Payload (tonnes)	22.27
2x DMUs (tonnes)	8.4
Effective Mass (tonnes)	202.59	M_e = Tare Mass (1 + Rotary Allowance)+Payload
P_max(MW)	2.35	T.F_maxx V/2 – Power Required to Move the Train
Motored Axles	7	16 x 44%
Power of Each Motored Axle (kW)	333	P_max/7
Maximum Hydrogen Output (kW)	363	Auxillary Power – 30 kW

3.4 Braking Performance

As the DMU utilised Air Brakes, when replacing this system with hydrogen dynamic braking will be utilised in form of regenerative braking. The calculations shown below in table 6 show the braking performance of Class 170 hydrogen powered.

Table 6 Braking Performance – Hydrogen Powered System Class 170 [14]

Parameters	Values	References
Train Type	Class 170
Maximum Speed (mph)	100
Maximum Speed (kph)	160.9
Maximum Speed (m/s)	44.70
Tare Load (t)	168.5
Max Load mass mml (t)	182.4
Gradient	1:40	Assumption
Stopping Distance Target (m)	1701	[14]
10% margin for Stopping Distance Target (m)	1530.9
Number of Units	4
Brake Application Time (s)	2.5	b/w 2.0 to 3.0 s
Brake Response Distance s_r (m)	111.76
Braking Distance s_b (m)	1475.02
Effective Mass m_e (t)	195.85	0.08 – Motored, (m_e = (mml + (m_t x 0.08))
Deceleration a_i (m/s²)	0.68
Deceleration Force F_d (kN)	132.67	F_d = m_e x a_i
2/3 x Max Speed (kph)	107.27
r_m = Mech/Track Resistance (N/tonne)	4508.19	BR Brake Performance Table
r_w = Air Resistance (N/Vehicle)	1170.42
r_o = Head and Tail Resistance (N/Train)	747.54
Vehicle Resistance Fr (kN)	6.43
Brake Force Required Fb (kN)	126.24	(F_b= F_d – F_r)
Braking Power P_b (mW)	5.64
P_b per wheel (kW)	705.41
Emergency Brake (kN)	164.11	30% x F_b
Emergency Deceleration Force (kN)	170.54	(F_d = F_b + F_r)
Emergency instant deceleration a_i (m/s²)	0.87
Emergency braking distance s_b(m)	1147.69
Emergency Stopping Distance (s_s = s_b + s_r) (m)	1259.22	1259.08 > 1053 [14]
Emergency braking power (mW)	7.62
Gradient Brake Performance (kN)	44.73

4 Carbon Emissions and Performance

Upon referring to various sources, an assumed annual mileage for Class 170 2x 4 configuration on the U.K network is 700,000 miles [15]. For diesel rail journeys the CO₂ emissions is 0.0602 kg CO₂/km. As per section 3.4 of [16], CO2 emission of fully hydrogen powered train is approx. 9% of a diesel train, i.e. 0.00542 kg CO₂/km [16]. The carbon emissions are analysed for fleet of Class 170 for diesel and hydrogen fuels as shown in table 7 below –

Table 7 Predicted Carbon Emissions

Vehicle Type	Source of Energy	Annual Mileage (km)	kg CO2/km – Fuel Type	CO2 Emission – Kg
Class 170	Diesel	1183000	0.0602	71216.6
Class 170	Hydrogen	1183000	0.005418	6409.5
Decarbonised Percentage				91%

From table 7, hydrogen powered Class 170 decreases carbon footprint 91%. The hydrogen powered system generates electricity with exhaust as pure water and heat.

4.1 Performance Summary

Class 170 is analysed with DMU and Hydrogen powered to address the agenda of decarbonisation and the following performance summary is derived based on the analysis –

Table 8 Class 170 Performance Summary

Class 170	Diesel	Hydrogen
Available Adhesion (µ)	0.12	0.12
Train Resistance (kN)	4.23	4.07
Acceleration (m/s²)	0.50
Deceleration (m/s²)	0.68
Top Speed (mph)	100.00	100.00
Power at wheels for Crush Load (kW)	347.00	333.00
Power at wheels for No Pay Load (kW)	310.00	296.00
Emergency Brake Distance (m)	1259.22
Brake Performance at Gradient (kN)	47.00	44.37
Type of Traction Motors	Gear Box	PMSMs
Energy Consumption per wheel (mW)	2.45	2.35
Carbon Emissions (kg)	71216.6	6409.5

5 CSM-RA

Railway being a safety critical business, it is a mandated requirement to carry out risk assessment evaluation for any changes to rail infrastructure or rolling stock. Using a generic Network Rail’s CSM-RA form, a brief RA is carried out for the hydrogen powered Class 170 train –

Table 9 CSM-RA for Class 170

COMPONENT OF TASK

HAZARDS

CONSEQUENCE

EXISTING

ADDITIONAL

Residual Risk

CONTROLS

Train Rooftop Storage – Hydrogen System

Electrocution

Burns or Death

Utilising a small surface area of the train rooftop for storage of hydrogen system

Insulation of the rooftop

Increased Braking force at gradient (1:40)

Falls and uncomfortable braking force

Head and/or body injury

Reducing weight of train by using alternative fuel options than Diesel

Using PMSM motors and hydrogen fuel cell stacks

Destruction of PMSM [17]

Electrocution due to short circuit

Burns or Death

Demagnetisation

Insulation around the PMSM storge on the train

GENERAL SUMMARY

The task is high risk and presents high risks as the works will be on rolling stock of Class 170

CONDUCTED BY:

Mohammad Ahmad

ACCEPTED BY:

TITLE:

E&P Engineer (HS)

TITLE:

6 Conclusion

The Class 170 Turbostar train characteristics were used to calculate the overall diesel and hydrogen performance. From table 7, it was eloquent that Hydrogen powered train does help significantly towards the agenda of decarbonisation. Hydrogen powered not only becomes greener but has decreased weight and lower energy consumptions as compared to Diesel Powered Class 170 train.

REFERENCES

[1]	N. R. -. C. b. G. Hopkins, “Rail Technical Strategy – Capability Development Plan,” RSSB (Link – https://www.rssb.co.uk/rts/Documents/2017-01-27-rail-technical-strategy-capability-delivery-plan-brochure.pdf), Milton Keynes, 27/01/2017.
[2]	G. NewsPaper, “Emissions by transport type,” Guardian NewsPaper, London, 2 September 2009.
[3]	N. Rail, “Who are we,” Network Rail, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/who-we-are/.
[4]	J. Gabbatiss, “Transport becomes most polluting UK sector as greenhouse gas emissions drop overall,” Independent Newspaper, 6 February 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/air-pollution-uk-transport-most-polluting-sector-greenhouse-gas-emissions-drop-carbon-dioxide-a8196866.html.
[5]	B. Staff, “Development and design of a narrow-gauge hydrogen-hyrbid locomotive,” Development and design of a narrow-gauge hydrogen-hyrbid locomotive, no. 25 March 2014, pp. 182 – 192, 6 November 2013.
[6]	G. N. K. G. G.D. Marin 1, “University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 2000 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, Ontario,,” Rail transportation by hydrogen vs. electrification e Case study for Ontario, Canada, II: Energy supply and, p. 11, 2010.
[7]	E. U. R. Group, “CLASS 170 AND 171,” Bombardier, [Online]. Available: https://eversholtrail.co.uk/fleet/class-170-and-171/.
[8]	C. J. Marsden, Traction Recognition book, London, 2016.
[9]	A. V. Railway, “BR CLASS 107 DMU,” [Online]. Available: https://www.avonvalleyrailway.org/about-us/locomotives-rolling-stock/br-class-107-dmu/.
[10]	S. H. ,. R. E. Tajud Din, “University of Birmingham,” Energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions analysis for a concept design of a hydrogen hybrid railway vehicle, no. DOI: 10.1049/iet-est.2017.0049, p. 14, 2018.
[11]	T. B. S. Institution, “BS 5892-7:2014,” Railway rolling stock materials, p. 62, 2015.
[12]	F. S. a. T. S. S Hillmansen, “The rise of permanent magnet traction motor,” The rise of permanent magnet traction motor, no. 1, p. 32, 2011.
[13]	Hydrogenics, “HyPM-HD Power Modules,” HyPM-HD Power Modules, p. 6, 2018.
[14]	S. P. Rail, “A world of Soluations,” A world of Soluations – Sales Program Rail, pp. 7-8, 2017.
[15]	RSSB, “Braking System Requirements and Performance for Multiple Units,” GM/RT2044, no. 4, p. 21, 2001.
[16]	Go-Ahead, “Moving People – Annnal Report and Accounts,” Go-Ahead, London, 2014.
[17]	L. M.-M. Z. P. Sabrina Chan, Analysis of GHG Emissions for City Passenger Trains: Is Electricity an Obvious Option for Montreal Commuter Trains?, no. 1, p. 4, 2013.

Share this: Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below: