Cross-border review of rail network officially launched

I'd also question how many of those are "on offer" - I suspect absolutely zero of them could be obtained for testing outside of the companies labs; whereas multiple companies are trying the combustion option - and finding out that its a terrible idea too - outside of company labs.

Sorry, but you are just completely wrong about this!!

The first Hydrogen Fuel Cell trains entered commercial passenger service in Germany back in 2018. That line has now been completely converted to HFC operation with 14 HFC trains in operation on the line (Alstom Coradia iLint):

A total of 27 trains are to be delivered by Alstom by next year:

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/coradia-ilint-hydrogen-trains/index.html

https://www.alstom.com/press-releases-news/2019/5/rmvs-subsidiary-fahma-orders-worlds-largest-fleet-fuel-cell-trains-alstom

Stadler Flirt H2's first HFC train just entered commercial passenger service in California on the Arrow service just last month:

https://rollingstockworld.com/passenger-cars/the-first-flirt-h2-hydrogen-train-from-stadler-enters-commercial-service-in-usa/

These are real trains, delivered to customers and in active passenger service, not just some prototype!

I'm not aware of any Hydrogen Combustion trains in commercial passenger services. Though I'm aware that it is something some freight operators in the US are playing with.

Hydrogen Fuel Cells aren't a new technology, we have 3 HFC buses with BE for a few years now and there are 20 or so up in Belfast.

Now those buses here and trains in Germany have had plenty of issues, I'm not sugar coating the issues that HFC vehicles are having, but lets not make up inaccurate nonsense, they have enough issues without doing that.

Sure and I've my own very strong doubts about HFC trains, but lets talk about it using actual facts!

I'm happy to discuss the issues that the HFC buses BE and Translink have or that the German HFC trains have had. But we should do so from a position of facts on the subject.

In another thread it was mentioned that the requirements were for a minimum of 177km/h running, but 200km/h preferred. The FLIRT 200 that these are based on are a 200km/h design, so I'd assume these are capable of it, though perhaps only in the pure EMU mode.

Also I'd agree these will likely be in a strong position for a future Mark 4 and eventual ICR replacement if all goes will.

That is the advantage of 200km/h over true high speed rail 300km/h TGV.

TGV trains are much heavier, which means they have slow acceleration speed out of stops, so if you have a route that is relatively short and with stops they rarely get up to 300km/h. On the other hand 200km/h trains are much lighter so they tend to have very good acceleration speed out of stations, better then TGV, so they can get up to 200km/h pretty fast and stay at that speed for longer.

This is why both Switzerland and Netherlands have opted for 200km/h too, is suits smaller countries with more frequent stops.

I don't think there is any major extra cost is specifying 200km/h, 200 has basically become the default for non TGV intercity trains. Take the Mark 4, they are actually 200km/h compatible, it is just the locos that are limited to 160km/h.

I do think 200 is necessary if you want to get to the 90 minute journey time between our cities that IR is targeting, it wouldn't be just a 2 minute difference.

BTW I really don't think most of our intercity network will need quad tracking, we are aiming for 30 minute frequency to each city. The likes of Netherlands can do 15 minute or better just fine on double track. Obviously you need to separate out DART, but it should be fine outside the cities. Also keep in mind the faster speeds also has an impact on frequency and track capacity. The main reason the Japanese invented high speed rail was to actually boost the capacity of the lines, not actual faster journey times, that was just a nice side effect. The faster you can make the journey, the faster you can turn the same train around and make the return journey, thus more trips per day per train, but also it means the line clears faster too, so you can send another train.

Our intercity network is a lifetime away from being congested. What we need to do is double track it, electrify it and speed it up and then we can make the most of it.

Thinking about it a bit more, I do at least partly see where Mark is coming from, I do think we have other priorities to get too before 200km/h service, but I do think it is a good long term goal.

Keep in mind these new trains won't enter service until 2030, that means we will likely have them until 2060 at least. While 200kph isn't a priority I would hope we would be well on our way to it before 2060! And before 2065-2070 for the Mark 4 replacements.

Most intercity trains start at 200kph from what I see in the market, it seems to be the default for modern intercity EMU's, 160kph trains largely seem to be smaller regional type trains. The Stadler Flirt 200 we are buying are basically designed as a 200kph train by default, I appreciate that in Diesel mode they might only do 177kph, but I think it would be a sin not to spec them to do 200kph once converted to full EMU and I don't think it is much more expensive to spec them like that given their default design.

BTW My priorities for intercity would be:

1. Hourly service to all cities, Cork has had it for years and Belfast recently got it which is great, but Galway/Limerick/Waterford should really be hourly too.
2. Half hourly service to Cork at peak times. It is getting busy enough for this.
3. Galway/Limerick/Waterford double tracking (or passing loops).
4. Remove all speed restrictions, consistent 160km/h running.
5. Electrification
6. 200km/h service, 90 minutes to every city.

I'd see 200 being the long term goal that we are gradually working towards.