The Anonymous Widower

Plastic Bag Charge To Rise To 10p And Be Extended To Every Shop

The title of this post is the same as that of this article in the Independent.

The title says it all.

I rarely buy a plastic bag and it is usually, when I travel around and have forgotten to put a bag in my coat pocket. I suspect I haven’t actually bought one since June.

I’ve also thought it wrong since the charge was introduced, that some shops didn’t charge, so this will create a level playing field.

As to the rise of the charge to ten pence, the biggest effect could be, that people remember to take a bag more often.

I do suspect though that smaller shops will complain and will say they will have to close.

But if they don’t have to charge, the taxpayer is effectively providing them with a subsidy.

If we are widening the plastic bag charge, surely now is the time to do something similar for fast food packaging.

The latter is personal, as quite a bit seems to end up outside my house in the front patio.

How about a ten pence packaging/obesity/littering charge on all fast food meals?

 

August 26, 2018 Posted by | World | , , | 4 Comments

Cost Studies Could See Electrification Comeback

The title of this post is the same as that of an article by Roger Ford in the September 2018 Edition of Modern Railways

There are now two studies into the cost of railway electrification.

Both arudies expected to be completed in October.

The article gives some examples of electrification costs per single track kilometre (stkm).

  • A sustained rolling program – £1million/stkm
  • Great Western Main Line – £3million/stkm
  • Northern England – Below £2million/stkm.
  • Cumbernauld-Springburn – £1.2million/stkm
  • East Coast Main Line – £500,000/stkm (At current prices)

The article finishes with these words.

£1million/stkm would be a feasible target.

That the Department for Transport has commissioned the independent review suggests electrification could still be on the agenda.

Roger is very much a respected commentator and his conclusions are more likely to be spot on, than wide of the mark.

Does Running Electric Trains On A Route Count As Electrification?

I ask this question deliberately, as over the last few years several schemes have been proposed to electrify perhaps two miles of line to a new development or city or town centre.

The Midland Metro is being extended to Wolverhampton station by building a tram line, that will be run using battery power on the existing trams.

Another example of this type of line is the extension of the Gospel Oak to Barking Line to Barking Riverside. After reading all the documentation, I have found that electric trains are mentioned several times, but electrification is not. As Bombardier Aventras probably can run on battery power, does this mean that the extension will be built without wires?

There are also some electrified branch lines, where the overhead electrification is unadulterated crap.

Could we see the electrification on these branches removed to save on replacement and maintenance costs and the trains replaced by battery trains charged on the electrified main lines?

Recent Developments

I think various developments of recent years will help in the containing of electrification costs.

Batteries On Trains

It is my belief that batteries on trains could revolutionise the approach to electrification.

In my view, batteries are the only way to handle regenerative braking, which cuts energy costs.

This means, that if no trains using a route, return their braking energy through the electrification, then costs are saved by using simpler transformers.

Adequate battery capacity also gives other advantages.

  • Bombardier are fitting remote wake-up to Aventras. I wrote about this in Do Bombardier Aventras Have Remote Wake-Up?
  • Depots and sidings can be built with only limited electrification.
  • Hitachi use batteries charged by regenerative braking to provide hotel power for Class 800 trains.
  • Batteries are a simple way of moving trains in a Last Mile application on perhaps a short branch line.
  • Battery power can be used to rescue a train, when the electrification fails.

Reports exist of Alstom, Bombardier, CAF, Hitachi, Siemens and Stadler using or researching the use of batteries in trains.

Hydrogen Power

I am becoming more enthusiastic about hydrogen power, which is primarily being developed by Alstom.

  • The UK could produce a lot of hydrogen easily from electrolysis of either brine to produce chlorine or water to produce hydrogen and oxygen.
  • Wind power would be a convenient way to provide the electricity needed.
  • Alstom are starting a project at Widnes to convert redundant Class 321 trains to hydrogen power.

A hydrogen powered Class 321 train would appear to be a powerful concept.

  • The trains will still be able to run on electrification.
  • The trains are pollution-free.
  • The trains make extensive use of batteries.
  • Alstom quote ranges of several hundred kilometres.
  • It would appear that the trains will still be capable of 100 mph after conversion.
  • Class 321 trains can be updated with quality interiors.

I believe these trains could find a solid market extending electrified routes.

Porterbrook’s Class 769 Trains

The Class 769 trains have been a long time coming, but companies have ordered 35 of these bi-mode upgrades of Class 319 trains.

  • They will be capable of 100 mph on electricity
  • They will be capable of 90 mph-plus on diesel
  • They will be able to use 25 KVAC overhead or 750 VDC third rail electrification.
  • They have been designed with a powerful hill-climbing capability.

Looking at the orders,some need the hill-climbing capability and GWR’s proposal to use the trains on the dual-voltage Reading-Gatwick route is a sensible one.

Bombardier’s 125 mph Bi-Mode Aventra With Batteries

I think that this train and others like it will be the future for many rail routes in the UK and around the world.

I will use the Midland Main Line as an example of the use of this type of train.

In a few years time, this important route will have the following characteristics.

  • A high proportion of 125 mph running.
  • Electrification between St. Pancras and Kettering/Corby
  • Possibly, electrification between Sheffield and Clay Cross courtesy of High Speed Two.

Full electrification would be difficult as part of the route is through a World Heritage Site.

But Bombardier’s train would swap power source intelligently as it powered its way along at 125 mph.

Stadler’s Electric/Diesel/Battery Hybrid Train

This version of Greater Anglia’s Class 755 train, has been ordered for the South Wales Metro.

It can run on the following power sources.

  • 25 KVAC overhead electrification.
  • Onboard diesel generators.
  • Batteries

An intelligent control system will select the best power source.

With a central power pack between passenger cars, the design of this train is slightly quirky.

  • It is a 100 mph train with lots of acceleration.
  • I’m sure it could be equipped for 750 VDC electrification.
  • The power pack can be configured for different operators and types of routes.
  • Stadler are quite happy to sell small fleets of trains into niche markets.
  • It is a member of the successful Flirt family of trains, which are selling all over the world.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see more of these trains sold to the UK.

Hitachi’s Class 800 Trains and Class 802 Trains

Hitachi’s Class 800 trains are already running on the Great Western Railway.

  • They have an operating speed of 125 mph on both electricity and diesel.
  • TransPennine Express have ordered nineteen Class 802 trains.
  • Hull Trains have ordered five Class 802 trains.

I have gone from London to Swansea and back in a day in Class 800 trains and they the new trains seem to be perfirming well.

They will get even better, as electrification is extended to Cardiff.

100/125 mph Bi-Mode Trains

In the previous sub-sections I have talked about four new bi-mode trains, that can run using electrification and under their own power.

  • Class 321 Hydrogen
  • Porterbrook’s Class 769 Train
  • High Speed Bi-Mode Aventra
  • Tri-Mode Stadler Flirt
  • Hitachi’s Class 800 Trains and Class 802 Trains

The designs are different, but they have common features.

  • An operating speed of at least 100 mph on electrified lines.
  • 90 mph-plus operating speed, when independently powered.
  • An out-and-back range of at least 200 miles away from electrification.
  • Proven designs from large families of trains.

Only one new route for these trains has been fully disclosed and that is Greater Anglia’s new Liverpool Street-Lowestoft service.

  • There will be three round trips a day between Lowestoft and London, using Class 755 trains.
  • North of Ipswich, diesel power will be used.
  • South of Ipswich, electric power will be used and trains will join the 100 mph queues to and from London.
  • Extra trains North of Ipswich, will use additional Class 755 trains, shuttling up and down the East Suffolk Line.

As the Class 755 trains and the express Class 745 trains on London-Ipswich-Norwich services will share the same team of drivers, it is an efficient use of bi-mode trains to extend an electric network.

Several of the proposed electrification schemes in the UK in addition to allowing electric trains, will also open up new routes for bi-mode and tri-mode trains.

  • Stirling to Perth electrification would allow bi-mode trains to run between Glasgow and Aberdeen via Dundee.
  • Leeds to York electrification would improve TransPennine bi-mode performance and allow electric trains access to Neville Hill TMD from the East Coast Main Line.
  • Sheffield to Clay Closs electrification for High Speed Two would also improve bi-mode performance on the Midland Main Line.

I think it should be born in mind, that the rolling out of the Class 800 trains all over the GWR, seems to have generated few bad reports, after a few initial problems.

In Thoughts On The Introduction Of Class 800 Trains On The Great Western Railway, I came to this conclusion.

There’s nothing much wrong operationally or passenger-wise with the Class 800 trains, that will not be put right by minor adjustments in the next couple of years.

So perhaps extending an electric network with quality bi-mode trains works well.

Used creatively bi-mode trains will increase the return on the money invested  in electrification.

Tram-Trains

I first saw tram-trains in Kassel in 2015 and I wrote about them in The Trams And Tram-Trains Of Kassel.

We are now embracing this technology in a trial in Sheffield using new Class 399 tram-trains.

I believe that, the UK is fertile territory for this technology.

  • KeolisAmey Wales haven’t waited for the results of the Sheffield trial and have already ordered thirty-six tram-trains with batteries for the South Wales Metro.
  • It also looks as if the West Midlands are planning to use the technology on an extension of the Midland Metro to Brierley Hill.
  • Glasgow are investigating a tram-train route to Glasgow Airport.

Although Network Rail and the Department for Transport seem to be only lukewarm on the technology, it does appear that local interests are much more enthusiastic.

In my view, the South Wales Metro is going to be a game changer, as it uses existing tracks, virtually standard tram-trains, electric/diesel/battery trains and a modicum of street running to transform a city’s transport system.

Intelligent Pantographs

I have read that the electro-diesel Class 88 locomotive can change between electric and diesel modes at line speed.

As a Control Engineer, I don’t believe it would be an impossible problem for a train powered by a mixture of 25 KVAC overhead electrification and diesel, battery, hydrogen or some other fuel to raise and lower a pantograph efficiently, to take advantage of any overhead wires that exist.

The raising and lowering could even be GPS controlled and totally automatic, with the driver just monitoring.

Ingenious Electrification Techniques

In Novel Solution Cuts Cardiff Bridge Wiring Cost, I wrote about how two simple techniques; an insulating coating and surge arresters, saved about ten million pounds, by avoiding a bridge reconstruction.

How much can be saved on electrification schemes by using simple and proven techniques like these?

Better Surveying And Site Information

A lot of the UK’s railways are like long Victorian buildings.

If you’ve ever tried to renovate a cottage that was built around the middle of the nineteenth century, you will understand the following.

  • It is unlikely you will have any accurate plans.
  • Some of the construction will be very good, but other parts will be downright shoddy.
  • You have no idea of the quality of the foundations.
  • If the building is Listed you’ll have a whole new level of bureaucracy to deal with.

Now scale your problems up to say a ten mile stretch of rail line, that needs to be electrified.

Instead of dealing with a cottage-sized plot, you may now be dealing with the following.

  • A double track railway with four train per hour (tph) in both directions.
  • A site that is several miles long.
  • Access to the work-site could be difficult.

So just surveying what has to be done and making sure you have details on any unforeseen underground structures like sewers, gas and water mains and old mine workings, can be a major undertaking.

Reading local newspaper reports on the Gospel Oak to Barking electrification, you get the impression the following happened.

  • Various overhead gantries were built to the wrong size.
  • A sewer was found, that had been missed by surveyors.
  • It was wrongly thought that the bridge at Crouch Hill station had sufficient clearance for the electrification. So much more work had to be done.

At least there weren’t any mine workings in East London, but as you can imagine these are a major problem in areas in the North.

Surely, nearly twenty years into the 21st century, we can avoid problems like these.

Discontinuous Electrification

Low bridges and and other structures crossing the tracks, can be  a big and expensive problem, when it comes to electrifying railway lines.

In the proposed electrification of the lines for the South Wales Metro, look at these statistics.

  • A total of 172 km. of track will be electrified.
  • Fifty-six structures were identified as needing to be raised.

The cost savings of eliminating some of this bridge raising would not be small.

In the July 2018 Edition of Modern Railways, there is an article entitled KeolisAmey Wins Welsh Franchise.

This is said about the electrification on the South Wales Metro.

KeolisAmey has opted to use continuous overhead line equipment but discontinuous power on the Core Valley Lnes (CVL), meaning isolated OLE will be installed under bridges. On reaching a permanently earthed section, trains will automatically switch from 25 KVAC overhead to on-board battery supply, but the pantograph will remain in contact with the overhead cable, ready to collect power after the section. The company believes this method of reducing costly and disruptive engineering works could revive the business cases of cancelled electrification schemes. Hopes of having money left over for other schemes rest partly on this choice of technology.

In the final design, KeolisAmey have been able to use this discontinuous power solution at all but one of the fifty-six structures.

These structures will be checked and refurbished as required, but they would be unlikely to need lengthy closures, which would disrupt traffic, cyclists and walkers.

Each structure would need a bespoke structure to create a rail or wire on which the pantograph, would ride from one side of the structure to the other. But installing these would be a task of a much smaller magnitude.

There must be a lot of scope for both cost and time savings.

I think in the future, when it comes to electrifying existing lines, I think we’ll increasing see, this type of discontinuous electrification used to avoid rebuilding a structurally-sound bridge or structure.

I also think, that experience will give engineers a more extensive library of solutions.

Hopefully, costs could be driven downwards, instead of spiralling upwards!

Complimentary Design Of Trains And New Electrified Routes

In recent years two major electric rail projects have been planned, which have gone much further than the old philosophy of just putting up wires and a adding fleet of new trains.

I believe that the Crossrail Class 345 trains and the tunnel under London were designed to be complimentary to each other to improve operation and safety and cut operating costs.

But the interesting project is the South Wales Metro, where discontinuous electrification and battery power have been used to design, what should be a world-class metro at an affordable cost.

Too many electrification schemes have been designed by dull people, who don’t appreciate the developments that are happening.

Conclusion On Recent Developments

UK railways are doing better on electrification than many think.

Possible Developments

These are ideas I’ve seen talked about or are my own speculation.

Intelligent Discontinuous Third Rail Electrification

New third rail electrification is not installed much these days, due to perceived safety problems.

I have seen it proposed by respected commentators, that third rail electrification could play a part in the charging of train batteries.

Discontinuous third-rail electrification is already used extensively, at places like level crossings and where a safe route is needed for staff to cross the line.

But it is done in a crude manner, where the contact shoes on the train run up and down the sloping ends of the third rail.

As a time-expired Control Engineer, I’m fairly sure that a much better, safer system can be designed.

On the South Wales Metro, where discontinuous overhead electrification is to be used, battery power will be used to bridge the gaps.

Supposing trains on a third-rail electrified route, were fitted with batteries that gave the train a range of say two kilometres. This would give sufficient range to recover a train, where the power failed to a safe evacuation point.

The range on battery power would mean that there could be substantial gaps between sections of electrification, which would be sized to maximise safety, operational efficiency and minimise energy use.

Each section of electrification would only be switched on, when a train was present.

Train drivers could also have an emergency system to cut the power in a particular section, if they saw anything untoward, such as graffiti artists on the line.

Third Rail Electrification In Stations

I have seen it proposed by respected commentators, that third rail electrification could play a part in the charging of train batteries.

When you consider that trains often spend fifteen or twenty minutes at a terminal station, it could make it easier to run electric or bi-mode trains with batteries on branch lines.

The rail would normally be switched off and would only be switched on, when a train was above and connected to the rail.

As a time-expired Control Engineer, I’m fairly sure that a safe system can be designed.

Third Rail Electrification On Viaducts

To some overhead electrification gantries on top of a high viaduct are an unnecessary eyesore.

So why not use third-rail electrification, on top of viaducts like these?

Trains would need to be able to swap efficiently and reliably between modes.

Gravity-Assisted Electrification

For a country with no really high mountains, we have quite a few railways, that have the following characteristics.

  • Heavily-used commuter routes.
  • Double-track
  • A height difference of perhaps two hundred metres.

These are a few examples.

  • Cardiff Queen Street to Aberdare, Merthy Tydfil, Rhymney and Treherbert
  • Exeter to Barnstaple
  • Glasgow Central to East Kilbride
  • Manchester to Buxton

All are in areas, where putting up overhead gantries may be challenging and opposed by some campaigners.

As an example consider the Manchester to Buxton route.

  • The height difference is 220 metres.
  • One of Northern’s Class 319 trains weighs 140.3 tonnes.
  • These trains have a capacity of around 320 passengers.
  • If each passenger weighs 90 Kg with baggage, bikes and buggies, this gives a train weight of 167.3 tonnes.

These figures mean that just over 100 kWh of electricity would be needed to raise the train to Buxton.

Coming down the hill, a full train would convert the height and weight into kinetic energy, which would need to be absorbed by the brakes. Only small amounts of new energy would need to be applied to nudge the train onto the hill towards Manchester.

The brakes on trains working these routes must take a severe hammering.

Supposing, we take a modern train with these characteristics.

  • Four cars.
  • Electric traction.
  • 200 kWh of battery capacity to handle regenerative braking.

Such a train would not be a difficult design and I suspect that Bombardier may already have designed an Aventra with these characteristics.

Only the uphill line would be electrified and operation would be as follows.

  • Climbing to Buxton, the train would use power from the electrification.
  • On the climb, the train could also use some battery power for efficiency reasons.
  • The train would arrive at Buxton with enough power left in the batteries to provide hotel power in the stop at Buxton and nudge the train down the hill.
  • On the descent, regenerative braking would be used to slow the train, with the energy created being stored in the batteries.
  • On the level run to Manchester, battery power could be used, rather than electrification power to increase efficiency.

How efficient would that be, with respect to the use of electricity?

I would also investigate the use of intelligent third-rail electrification, to minimise visual impact and the need to raise any bridges or structures over the line.

Gravity is free and reliable, so why not use it?

We don’t know the full

Conclusion On Possible Developments

Without taking great risks, there are lots of ideas out there that will help to electrify routes in an affordable manner.

Conclusion

I very much feel we’ll be seeing more electrification in the next few years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

August 26, 2018 Posted by | Transport | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Borderlands Deal Bid Gathers Pace

The title of this post is the same as this article on the BBC.

I feel it would be a good idea for the England-Scotland border to get a growth deal, as every time I go there, it seems to me that the Borderlands are economically interdependent.

This is a paragraph.

Among the schemes potentially involved is a study looking at extending the Borders Railway to Carlisle.

This railway would surely be very beneficial in industries like tourism and forestry.

August 26, 2018 Posted by | Transport | , | Leave a comment

Battery Trains On The Uckfield Branch

The Uckfield Branch is not electrified and it only gets an hourly service to London Bridge.

However a few years ago, all platforms on the line were extended, so that twelve-car trains could run services.

I have always felt that this service was ideal for running using battery trains.

  • Trains would run between London Bridge and Hurst Green using the third rail electrification.
  • The batteries would be charged between London Bridge and Hurst Green stations.
  • South of Hurst Green, the train would run on battery power.
  • Top-up charging could be provided during the eleven minute turnround at Uckfield station.

These are distances and times between stations South of Hurst Green.

  • Hurst Green – Edenbridge Town – 4.33 miles – 6.98 km. – 6 mins – 7 mins
  • Edenbridge Town – Hever – 1.75 miles – 2.81 km – 4 mins – 4 mins
  • Hever – Cowden – 2 miles – 3.21 km. – 4 mins – 5 mins
  • Cowden – Ashurst – 2.77 miles – 4.47 km. – 4 mins – 4 mins
  • Ashurst – Eridge – 2.31 miles – 3.72 km. – 6 mins – 6 mins
  • Eridge – Crowborough – 3.74 miles – 6.01 km. – 6 mins – 6 mins
  • Crowborough – Buxted – 4.71 miles – 7.58 km – 7 mins – 7 mins
  • Buxted – Uckfield – 2.25 miles – 3.62 km – 6 mins – 4 mins

Note.

  1. The first time is Southbound and the second is Northbound.
  2. I only calculated distances to two decimal places.

It appears the route has a generally 70 mph operating speed.

What Is The Performance Of The Current Class 171 Trains?

Class 171 trains have the following characteristics.

  • 100 mph operating speed
  • Acceleration of 0.5 m per second²
  • A weight of 90.41 tonnes.
  • Seating for 109 passengers.
  • On my trip today, the train rarely exceeded 50 mph.

What Would Be The Performance Of A Battery Train?

I will assume that the battery train is something like a Class 701 train fitted with batteries.

  • Ten cars
  • 100 mph operating speed
  • Acceleration of 1.0 m per second² (taken from Class 345 train)
  • A weight of 364.9 tonnes. (An estimate based on data from Weight And Dimensions Of A Class 345 Train.
  • Based on the Class 345 train, I would reckon the train would have at least eight motored cars.
  • I would put a battery in each motored car.
  • Capacity of 546 seated and 673 standing passengers.

I will use this information to calculate the energy of the train.

Assuming each passenger with all their baggage is 90 kg., this gives a passenger weight of 109.71 tonnes

This gives a total train weight of 474.61 tonnes.

Calculating the kinetic energy for various speeds gives.

  • 30 mph – 11.8 kWh
  • 40 mph – 21 kWh
  • 50 mph -30.9 kWh
  • 70 mph – 64.5 kWh
  • 80 mph – 84.3 kWh
  • 90 mph – 106.7 kWh
  • 100 mph – 131.7 kWh

Even the highest energy figure, which is way above the operating speed of the line could be handled under regenerative braking by a convenient size of battery.

How Would A Battery Train Operate?

This Google Map shows Hurst Green station and Hurst Green Junction, where the Uckfield and East Grinstead branches split.

As the East Grinstead branch is electrified, after stopping at Hurst Green station, a train for Uckfield station will have something like two to three hundred metres of electrified track to accelerate it to the operating speed.

At present the operating speed appears to be 70 mph, but if it were higher, the train would enter the section of track without electrification, with more energy.

As it is, the train would probably be entering the branch with batteries, that had been fully-charged on the way from London.

The electrification would have been used like a catapult to impart maximum energy to the train.

At each stop, the following would happen.

  • Regenerative braking will convert the train’s kinetic energy into electricity, which will be stored in the batteries.
  • Battery power would then accelerate the train after each stop.

As regenerative braking is not 100% efficient, there would be a loss of perhaps fifteen percent of kinetic energy at each stop.

So gradually as the train progresses to Uckfield and back, the battery charge will be depleted.

There are seven stations between Hurst Green and Uckfield,so that means that fifteen stops will have to be made before the train returns to the electrification at Hurst Green.

If the train was operating at 70 mph, the kinetic energy would be 64.5 kWh and the losses in the regenerative braking at fifteen stations would be 64.5 *0.15 *15 or 145.57 kWh.

I will assume each battery train has eight 50 kWh batteries, as Bombardier have a 50 kWh PRIMOVE battery that would be suitable.

So if the train entered the Uckfield branch with 400 kWh in the batteries and 64.5 kWh in the train, it would be carrying 464.5 kWh, that could be used to power the train.

As I said, 145.57 kWh would be lost in braking, so that would leave 318.93 kWh to take a ten car train, a distance of 46 miles.

This works out at a figure of 0.7 kWh per car per mile for the journey.

In an article in the October 2017 Edition of Modern Railways, which is entitled Celling England By The Pound, Ian Walmsley says this in relation to trains running on the Uckfield Branch, which is not very challenging.

A modern EMU needs between 3 and 5 kWh per vehicle mile for this sort of service.

So it looks like running a battery train on the route could be impossible, as there is a large difference between 0.7 and 3.

Let’s see what the mathematics say for various ideas.

Put A 50 kWh battery In Each Car

The larger battery capacity would mean the train will enter the branch  carrying 564.5 kWh, that could be used to power the train.

Thus after deducting the regeneration losses of 145.57 kWh, this would leave 418.93 kWh to run the 460 vehicle miles.

This works out at a figure of 0.9 kWh per car per mile for the journey.

Improve The Efficiency Of The Regenerative Braking

Suppose that the energy lost at each stop can be reduced from fifteen to ten percent, how much difference would that make?

If the train was operating at 70 mph, the kinetic energy would be 64.5 kWh and the losses in the regenerative braking would now be 64.5 *0.10 *15 or 96.75 kWh.

Using the 500 kWh battery would mean the train will enter the branch  carrying 564.5 kWh, that could be used to power the train.

Thus after deducting the regeneration losses of 96.75 kWh would leave 467.75 kWh to run the 460 vehicle miles.

This works out at a figure of 1 kWh per car per mile for the journey.

Charge the Train At Uckfield

Trains take eleven minutes to turn round at Uckfield station.

So how much power could be put into the batteries in that time?

But the Aventra isn’t a normal train.

Crossrail’s Class 345 trains have the following formation.

DMS+PMS+MS1+MS3+TS(W)+MS3+MS2+PMS+DMS

Note that it is symmetrical with two PMS cars, which have pantographs and the heavy electrical gear.

I suspect that the trains are two half trains with a degree of independent systems, so that if there are problems in the Crossrail tunnel, the train doesn’t get trapped.

I wonder if Thameslink’s Class 700 trains are the same?

So will South Western Railway’s third rail Class 701 trains be similarly designed, so that they can bridge gaps in the third rail electrification. If the third-rail shoes were in the second and ninth cars, they would be around 160 metres apart.

So perhaps a charging point based on third rail technology could be a double one, with a connection to each half-train.

This picture shows the exceedingly long platform at Uckfield station.

It could certainly accommodate a double third rail-based charging system.

  • It would be on the far-side from the platform.
  • It would only be activated with a train the platform and connected.
  • It could be designed to have no serious safety problems.

The eleven minute charge would be equivalent to one of twenty-two minutes.

There must surely be the option to adjust the timetable, so that trains spend a few minutes longer at Uckfield and a few less at London Bridge, where charging isn’t necessary, as they charge the batteries all the way to and from Hurst Green.

Aventra Trains Have A Low Energy Mode

A few months ago, I was on a Crossrail train and I got talking to one of the driver/trainers.

I asked him what happens, if the power fails in the Crossrail tunnel.

He told me, that the driver switches systems off to reduce power requirements and switches to emergency power to move the train to a safe place to evacuate passengers.

Suppose though, when the train is running on batteries, power-hungry systems like air-conditioning were turned to a low energy mode. With judicious switching and innovation in design, I suspect that energy use can be lowered when running on batteries and raised when running on electrification to compensate.

Suppose, it was a very hot summer’s day.

The air-conditioning would be cooling the train from London Bridge to Hurst Green, getting more than adequate power from the electrification.

At Hurst Green, the train would be just the right temperature and the air-conditioning would be switched to eco-mode.

The train would be well-insulated and this would help maintain the cool environment, until the electrification was regained.

What about a cold day in the winter?

This post is entitled Aventras Have Underfloor Heating. On a cold day will this act a bit like a storage heating and keep the train warm if the power fails?

As I said I don’t think an Aventra is a normal train and although some of this is my deductions, we should be prepared for surprises as more of these trains start running on the UK’s railways.

Will Battery Trains Be Slower?

Much of the battery running on this route will be short hops of a few miles and minutes between stations.

The longest section will be between Crowborough and Buxted stations, which is 4.71 miles and currently takes seven minutes in both directions.

Both the Class 171 trains and the battery trains, will operate each section in the same way.

  • Accelerate to the line speed, as fast as possible.
  • Run at line speed for a measured distance.
  • Slow down and apply braking to stop precisely in the next station.

As the battery train has 1 metre per sec² acceleration, as opposed to 0.5 metre per sec² of the diesel train, the battery train will get to line speed faster

Regenerative braking will also be smoother and possibly greater, than the brakes on the diesel train.

I am fairly sure, that a well-designed battery train will save a few minutes on each leg from Hurst Green to Uckfield.

These time savings could be used to extend the charging time at Uckfield

Conclusion

Running services on the Uckfield branch using battery-powered trains is a feasible proposition.

But these trains must have the following features.

  • Regenerative braking to the trains batteries.
  • A design where batteries are central to the traction system, not an afterthought.
  • The ability to minimise power use for onboard systems.

But above all, the trains must have energy efficient systems.

Bombardier obviously have better figures and information than I do, so I think we should be prepared for surprises.

 

 

 

 

August 26, 2018 Posted by | Energy Storage, Transport | , , | 1 Comment