Hydrogen is the future!

ConstanceR46 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 5:10 pm amazing how americans continue to forget that yes, electrification is a thing, and yes, it does work

Electrification does have no emissions but wouldn't there still be a power plant somewhere which would be burning fossil fuels in order to make that electricity? Not to mention electrifying large portions of track could be expensive for a railroad.

add to that the maintenance.

pennsy - if the russians manage to successfully electrify the trans-siberian i think some of the C1s could pony up cash for juicing a line

also, there's the fact that there are many other types of power than fossil fuel - nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, solar....

ConstanceR46 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 10:09 pm pennsy - if the russians manage to successfully electrify the trans-siberian i think some of the C1s could pony up cash for juicing a line

also, there's the fact that there are many other types of power than fossil fuel - nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, solar....

That is a very good point! This has to do with my comment on the "the future of high speed rail in america" thread in which private corporations should run American passenger railroads so this way they could have funding from private sectors, such as brightline (Virgin Trains USA). Electrification of main lines, the acquisition of new electric, solar, or hydrogen-powered trains, and the development of amazing stations could be accomplished with this private funding rather than government-funded railroads such as Amtrak, which only receives so much funding to the point where AMtrak has little to no money to do such things, and even have to make budget cuts. The reason why Russia was able to electrify this line was that Russia's government was able to fund the railway almost fully while the U.S. government does not fully fund Amtrak, which is why Amtrak is given so little funding to do such things.

ConstanceR46 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 10:09 pm pennsy - if the russians manage to successfully electrify the trans-siberian i think some of the C1s could pony up cash for juicing a line

also, there's the fact that there are many other types of power than fossil fuel - nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, solar....

To be fair, it took the Russians several decades to get all of the Trans-Siberian electrified, and the newer Baikal-Amur Mainline ("BAM") is still diesel.

If you think privatization is the solution you're missing the point. Every great railroad network - China, Russia, Japan (for most of it's existence)... They were nationalized and government-funded. Privatization is a dumb idea because every other time it's been tried it's resulted in whole-sale gutting - see BR post-90s

ConstanceR46 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 7:15 pm If you think privatization is the solution you're missing the point. Every great railroad network - China, Russia, Japan (for most of it's existence)... They were nationalized and government-funded. Privatization is a dumb idea because every other time it's been tried it's resulted in whole-sale gutting - see BR post-90s

British Rail is a very poor example. With the exception of HS1 corridor between London and the English Channel, the UK government has not built one additional new intercity rail corridor in the UK. All the rest of the intercity rail corridors within the UK were built by private enterprises. The famous Beeching rail service cuts of the 1960s were done by the nationalized British Rail. Far more rail miles were cut by BR than built for HS1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeching_cuts

ConstanceR46 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 7:15 pm If you think privatization is the solution you're missing the point. Every great railroad network - China, Russia, Japan (for most of it's existence)... They were nationalized and government-funded. Privatization is a dumb idea because every other time it's been tried it's resulted in whole-sale gutting - see BR post-90s

The point I'm trying to make is that the governments of Russia, China, and others actually see the importance of having rail transportation and full it fully, whereas the U.S. government does not fund Amtrak fully since it is government-ran and even the state governments would rather fund a new airline or a new basketball stadium for a team who doesn't make the playoffs often, such as what happened with the state of Indiana refusing to give only $3 million of its $34 billion budget. When I mentioned privatization, I was not referring to the franchising and bidding wars with British Rail, but rather brightline (Virgin Trains USA) a very successful private corporation which is able to order efficient high speed trainsets and offer exquisite service for their passengers with their modern passenger cars and stations. For further discussion of why I feel private corporations should handle passenger railroads in the U.S., please continue this on a new topic so that it does not interfere with this topic.

charlesriverbranch wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:57 pm

ConstanceR46 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 10:09 pm pennsy - if the russians manage to successfully electrify the trans-siberian i think some of the C1s could pony up cash for juicing a line

also, there's the fact that there are many other types of power than fossil fuel - nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, solar....

To be fair, it took the Russians several decades to get all of the Trans-Siberian electrified, and the newer Baikal-Amur Mainline ("BAM") is still diesel.

And Russia doesn't have several competing relatively high speed (80mph+) freeways also making the trip, like our interstate system.

scratchyX wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:12 pm

charlesriverbranch wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:57 pm

ConstanceR46 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 10:09 pm pennsy - if the russians manage to successfully electrify the trans-siberian i think some of the C1s could pony up cash for juicing a line

also, there's the fact that there are many other types of power than fossil fuel - nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, solar....

To be fair, it took the Russians several decades to get all of the Trans-Siberian electrified, and the newer Baikal-Amur Mainline ("BAM") is still diesel.

And Russia doesn't have several competing relatively high speed (80mph+) freeways also making the trip, like our interstate system.

That is true. American culture nowadays seems to focus more on cars rather than trains ever since the INterstate Highway Act of 1954 indirectly encoueaged more people to use cars in teh U.S. rather than trains, thus driving away more people from the railroads and thus leading to their downfall.

Pensyfan19 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 4:31 pmThat is true. American culture nowadays seems to focus more on cars rather than trains ever since the INterstate Highway Act of 1954 indirectly encoueaged more people to use cars in teh U.S. rather than trains, thus driving away more people from the railroads and thus leading to their downfall.

It's called freedom. Something that Russians didn't have when they built the Trans-Siberian, BTW...

electricron wrote: ↑Thu Jan 02, 2020 10:49 pm (2) steam reforming of methane and other hydrocarbons, nearly all of the industrial H2 produced today (about 100 million kg in the USA alone) is obtained by this method."

OK, here's a stupid question: how much efficiency is lost by converting methane into hydrogen, as opposed to simply burning the methane as fuel? I assume the carbon in the methane goes into the atmosphere no matter which option you choose, so it follows that the more efficient option will put the lesser amount of carbon into the air.

"It's called freedom" is such a hilarious take - So Stalin himself was forcing Russians to take trains? Famously, before the 1950s, everyone had a car and nobody took the train. And nobody overfunded and focused on roads and car infrastructure in the 1950s. And there are NO transit deserts where people are forced to use cars. No suburbs are unlivable without a car, obviously!

Nah, during the revolutionary war, we fought for the god-given right to drive SUVs which would be classified as armored personnel carriers to the mall.

An explosion hazard if any significant amount of hydrogen, whether solid or liquid or gaseous, is carried through a tunnel.

Just as with propane or compressed natural gas, if a leak occurred in the tank, the escaping hydrogen will (evaporate if not already gaseous and) mix with air containing oxygen, producing a highly explosive mixture.

Mod Note: cute diversion about how in Soviet Russia, trains ride you but an examination of Stalin’s transport policies isn’t necessary here.

Otherwise interesting, thanks for staying on topic.