The Anonymous Widower

Bombardier Doesn’t Seem Too Disappointed On Missing Out On The Abellio East Midlands Railway Order

This article on the Derby Telegraph is entitled Derby’s Bombardier Misses Out On Big Contract To Supply Trains For The East Midlands.

This is two paragraphs from the article.

In a statement, Bombardier said: “Bombardier is clearly disappointed that we have not been selected to supply bi-mode trains for the East Midlands franchise.

“We believe we submitted a competitive bid – on technology, strength of product, deliverability and cost, and will seek formal feedback from Abellio.”

There certainly hasn’t been any published threat of legal action.

The Abellio East Midlands Railway Order From Hitachi.

The order placed was as follows.

Thirty-three five-car AT-300 trains.

  • 25 KVAC overhead electrification.
  • Four cars have underfloor diesel-engines.
  • 125 mph running.
  • 24 metre cars.
  • Ability to work in pairs.
  • Evolution of a Class 802 train.
  • A new nose.

It is a £400 million order.

No Trains For Corby

In How Will Abellio East Midlands Railway Maximise Capacity On The Midland Main Line?, I calculated that the current timetable to Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield would need thirty-two trains.

So thirty-three trains would only be enough trains for the bi-mode services to the three Northern termini.

So it looks like Hitachi are not providing any trains for the Corby services! Surely, to have a compatible fleet from one manufacturer would be of an advantage to Abellio East Midlands Railway.

An Ideal Fleet For Corby

Trains between London and Corby take around 70-75 minutes, with a round trip taking three hours.

This means that to run a one train per hour (tph) service to Corby needs three trains and a two tph service will need six trains.

As trains go wrong and also need servicing, I would add at least one spare train, but two is probably preferable.

It would have the following characteristics.

  • All electric.
  • 125 mph running, as they will need to keep out of the way of the Hitachi bi-modes.
  • 240 metres long.
  • A passenger-friendly interior, with loys of tables.
  • Energy efficient

If the last point s to be met, I and many other engineers believe that to save energy, trains must have regenerative braking to batteries on the train.

In Kinetic Energy Of A Five-Car Class 801 Train, I calculated that the kinetic energy of a Class 801 train, with every seat taken was 104.2 kWh

This calculation was performed for a half-length train, so a full electric train for London and Corby would have a kinetic energy of 208.4 kWh, if it was similar to one of Hitachi’s Class 801 train.

The reason the kinetic energy of a train is important, is teat if a train brakes from full speed and has batteries to handle the energy generated by regenerative braking, the batteries must be big enough to handle all the energy.

So a ten-car train similar in capacity and weight to a Class 801 train would need batteries capable of handling 208.4 kWh.

I’ll give a simple example.

A train similar to a Class 801, is full and running using electrification at 125 mph. It is approaching a station, where it will stop.

  • The train’s computer knows the mass and velocity of the train at all times and hence the kinetic energy can be calculated.
  • The train’s computer will constantly manage the train’s electricity supply, so that the batteries always have sufficient capacity to store any energy generated by braking.
  • As the train brakes, the energy generated will be stored in the batteries.
  • As the train moves away from the station, the train’s computer will use energy from the overhead electrification or batteries to accelerate the train.

Energy will constantly be recycled between the traction motors and the batteries.

I don’t know what battery capacity would be needed, but in my experience, perhaps between 300-400 kWh would be enough.

Any better figures, gratefully accepted.

When you consider that the battery in a Tesla car is around 60-70 kWh, I don’t think, there’ll be too much trouble putting enough battery power underneath a ten-car train.

Onward To Melton Mowbray

This page on the Department for Transport web site is an interactive map of the Abellio’s promises for East Midlands Railway.

These are mentioned for services to Oakham and Melton Mowbray.

  • After electrification of the Corby route there will continue to be direct service each way between London and Oakham and Melton Mowbray once each weekday, via Corby.
  • This will be operated with brand new 125mph trains when these are introduced from April 2022.

This seems to be a very acceptable minimum position.

Surely, in a real world driven by marketing and finance and more and more passengers wanting to travel regularly by train to places like London, Luton Airport and Leicester, there will come a time, when an hourly service on this route is needed.

Could a Corby service be extended to Melton Mowbray using battery power, at perhaps a slower speed of 90 mph?

Accelerating away from Corby, the train would need 108 kWh of energy to get to 90 mph with a full train.

  • There would be a continuation of the electrification for perhaps a couple of hundred metres after Corby station.
  • The train would probably leave Corby with a full battery, which would have been charged on the journey from London.

Once at cruising speed, the train would need energy to maintain line speed and provide hotel power.

In How Much Power Is Needed To Run A Train At 125 mph?, I calculated the figure for some high-speed trains.

This was my conclusion.

In future for the energy use of a train running at 125 mph, I shall use a figure of three kWh per vehicle mile.

So I will use that figure, although I suspect the real figure could be lower.

I will also assume.

  • Corby to Melton Mowbray is 26.8 miles.
  • It’s a ten-car train.
  • Regenerative braking is seventy percent efficient.
  • The train is running at 90 mph, between Cotby and Melton Mowbray, with an energy of 108 kWh

Energy use on a round trip between Corby and Melton Mowbray, would be as follows.

  • Accelerating at Corby – 108 kWh – Electrification
  • Stop at Oakham – 32.4 kWh – Battery
  • Corby to Melton Mowbray – 804 kWh – Battery
  • Stop at Melton Mowbray – 32.4 kWh – Battery
  • Stop at Oakham – 32.4 kWh – Battery
  • Melton Mowbray to Corby – 804 kWh – Battery

This gives a total of 1705.2 kWh

The battery energy need gets a lot more relaxed, if there is a charging station at Melton Mowbray, as the train will start the return journey with a full battery.

Energy use from Corby to Melton Mowbray would be as follows.

  • Accelerating at Corby – 108 kWh – Electrification
  • Stop at Oakham – 32.4 kWh – Battery
  • Corby to Melton Mowbray – 804 kWh – Battery

This gives a total of 836.4 kWh.

Energy use from Melton Mowbray to Corby would be as follows.

  • Accelerating at Melton Mowbray- 108 kWh – Battery
  • Stop at Oakham – 32.4 kWh – Battery
  • Melton Mowbray to Corby – 804 kWh – Battery

This gives a total of 944.4 kWh.

The intriguing fact, is that if you needed a train to go out and back from Corby to Melton Mowbray, it needs a battery twice the size of one needed, if you can charge the train at Melton Mowbray., during the stop of several minutes.

Charging The Train

This page on the Furrer and Frey web site, shows a charging station..

It might also be possible to erect a short length of 25 KVAC overhead electrification. This would also help in accelerating the train to line speed.

This Google Map shows Melton Mowbray station.

It looks to be a station on a large site with more than adequate car parking and I suspect building a bay platform with charging facilities would not be the most difficult of projects.

More Efficient Trains

I also think that with good design electricity use can be reduced from my figure of 3 kWh per vehicle mile and the regenerative braking efficiency can be increased.

Obviously, the more efficient the train, the greater the range for a given size of battery.

Onward To Leicester

If the train service can be extended  by the 26.8 miles between Corby and Melton Mowbray, I wonder if the electric service can be extended to Leicester.

Under current plans the Northern end of the electrification will be Market Harborough.

In Market Harborough Station – 11th July 2019, I wrote about the station after a visit. In my visit, I notices there were a lot of croaaovers to the North of the station.

As it was a new track alignment, I suspect that they were new.

So is it the interntion to turnback services at Market Harborough or are the crossovers preparation for links to stabling sidings?

It got me asking if battery-electric trains could reach Leicester.

  • Leicester and Market Harborough are only fourteen miles apart.
  • There are no stops in between.
  • Using my three kwH per vehicle mile, this would mean that a ten car train would use 420 kWh between the two stations at 125 mph.

I certainly believe that a Northbound train passing Market Harborough with fully-charged batteries could reach Leicester, if it had an adequate battery of perhaps 700 kWh.

As at Melton Mowbray, there would probably need to be a charging station at Leicester.

The picture shows the station from the Northern bridge.

The platforms shown are the two main lines used by most trains. On the outside are two further lines and one or both could be fitted with a charging station, if that were necessary.

An Example Electric Service Between London And Leicester

If they so wanted, Abellio East Midlands Railway could run 125 mph battery-electric services between London and Leicester.

The Current Timings

The fastest rains go North in around 66-67 minutes and come South in seventy.

So a round trip would take around two and a half hours.

Five trains would be needed for a half-hourly service.

I feel it would be very feasible, if Abellio East Midlands Railway wanted to increase services between London and Leicester, then this could be done with a fleet of zero-carbon battery-electric trains, using battery power between Leicester and Market Harborough.

A Non-Stop London And Leicester Service

I wonder what would be the possible time for an electric express running non-stop between London and Leicester.

  • Currently, some diesel Class 222 trains are timetabled to achieve sixty-two minutes.
  • Linespeed would be 125 mph for much of the route.
  • There is no reason, why the fourteen mile section without electrification North of Market Harborough couldn’t be run at 1235 mph on battery-power, once the track is upgraded to that speed.
  • iIn the future, modern digital signalling, as used by Thameslink, could be applied to the whole route and higher speeds of up to 140 mph may be possible.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see a battery-electric train travelling between London and Leicester in fifty minutes before 2030.

A fifty-minute service would result in a two-hour round trip and need just two trains for a frequency of two tph.

It would surely be a marketing man’s dream.

It should be noted that Abellio has form in this area and have introduced Norwich-in-Ninrty services on the slower London and Norwich route.

London And Leicester Via Corby, Oakham And Melton Mowbray

I have been very conservative in my calculations of battery size.

With real data on the terrain, the track profile, the train energy consumption, regenerative braking performance and the passengers, I do wonder, if it would be possible to run on battery power between Corby and Leicester via Oakham and Melton Mowbray.

  • The distance would be 62 miles on battery power.
  • Trains could serve Syston station.
  • Using times of current services London and Leicester would take two hours fifteen minutes.

I suspect it would be possible, but it would be a slow service.

Would These Services Be An Application For Bombardier’s 125 mph Bi-Mode Aventra With Batteries?

Could Bombardier’s relaxed reaction to not getting the main order, be because they are going to be building some of their proposed 125 mph bi-mode trains with batteries, that will be able to work the following routes?

  • London and Melton Mowbray via Corby and Oakham.
  • London and Leicester via Market Harborough.

But I think that the main emphasis could be on a non-stop high-speed service between London and Leicester.

I have been suspicious that there is more to Bombardier’s proposed train than they have disclosed and wrote Is Bombardier’s 125 mph Bi-Mode Aventra With Batteries, A 125 mph Battery-Electric Aventra With Added Diesel Power To Extend The Range?

Since I wrote that article, my view that Bombardier’s train is a battery-electric one, with diesel power to extend the range, has hardened.

These Midland Main Line trains will run in two separate modes.

  • On the Southern electrified sections, the trains will be 125 mph electric trains using batteries for regenerative braking, energy efficiency and emergency power in the case of overhead line failure..
  • On the Northern sections without electrification,the trains will be battery-electric trains running at the maximum line-speed possible, which will be 125 mph on Leicester services.

There will be an optimum battery size, which will give the train the required performance.

Is there any need for any diesel engines?

Quite frankly! No! As why would you lug something around that you only need for charging the batteries and perhaps overhead supply failure?

  • Batteries would only need to be charged at the Northern end of the routes. So use a chasrging station, if one is needed!
  • Batteries can handle overhead supply failure, automatically.

Who needs bi-modes?

How Big Would The Batteries Need To Be?

A full train would have a kinetic energy of around 200 kWh and I said this about battery capacity for handling the energy from regenerastive braking.

I don’t know what battery capacity would be needed, but in my experience, perhaps between 300-400 kWh would be enough.

Any better figures, gratefully accepted.

To handle Corby to Melton Mowbray and back, I estimated that 1,800 kWh would be needed, but if the train had a top-up at Melton Mowbray a capacity of 1,000 kWh would be sufficient.

Pushed, I would say, that a battery capacity of 2,000 kWh would be sufficient to run both routes without a charging station, at the Northern end.

I also believe the following will happen.

  • Trains will get more efficient and leighter in weight.
  • Batteries will increase their energy density.
  • Charging stations will charge trains faster.
  • Battery costs will fall.

This would mean that larger battery capacities can be achieved without the current weight and cost penalty and the achievable range after the end of the wires will increase.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see ranges of over fifty miles in a few years, which with a charging station at the destination, means battery-electric trains could venture fifty miles from an electrified line.

A few other suggested routes.

  • Ashford and Southampton
  • Birmingham and Stansted Airport
  • Carliswle and Newcastle
  • Doncaster and Peterborough via Lincoln (CS)
  • Edinburgh and Tweedbank (CS)
  • London Euston and Chester
  • London St. Pancras and Hastings
  • London Waterloo and Salisbury (CS)
  • Manchester and Sheffield (CS)
  • Norwich and Nottingham (CS)
  • York and Hull via Scarborough (CS)

Note.

  1. Stations marked (CS) would need a charging station.
  2. Some routes would only need 100 mph trains.

I think that a 125 mph battery train will have a big future.

Conclusion

I have a feeling that Bombardier are right to be not too disappointed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

« Previous | Next »

August 1, 2019 Posted by | Energy Storage, Transport | , , , | Leave a comment

How Will Abellio East Midlands Railway Maximise Capacity On The Midland Main Line?

In this post, I will try and get a feel to how Abellio East Midlands Railway, will maximise capacity on the Midland Main Line.

The Current Service

There are currently two trains per hour (tph) to both Nottingham and Sheffield and one tph to Corby from London.

Ignoring the Corby service, which will be using electric trains, intermediate calls have these frequencies, from South to North.

  • Bedford – One tph
  • Wellingborough – One tph
  • Kettering – One tph
  • Market Harborough – Two tph
  • Leicester – Four tph
  • Loughborough – Two tph
  • East Midlands Parkway – Two tph
  • Long Eaton – One tph
  • Beeston – One tph
  • Derby – Two tph
  • Chesterfield – Two tph

As the new bi-mode trains will be more modern, with probably shorter dwell times at each station, I suspect that when Abellio East Midlands Railway implement their ultimate timetable, there will be more stops, without degrading journey times.

These are fastest times.

  • London and Nottingham is one hour forty minutes
  • London and Sheffield is two hours

I feel that round trips to both destinations will be four hours with some speed increases and shorter station dwell times.

  • The current two tph to Nottingham and Sheffield needs eight trains to each destination.
  • This is a total of sixteen trains.

As each train could be two five-car trains working as a ten-car train, train numbers for the current service could be as high as thirty-two trains.

A first look seems to indicate that there .will be no overall increase in train frequency, although, as I said earlier, the performance of the new trains should allow extra station stops.

It also indicates to me, that any increases in frequency between London and Nottingham/Sheffield will need extra trains.

The Electrified High Speed Line South Of Kettering

Midland Main Line services South of Kettering are as follows.

  • Two tph to London and Nottingham
  • Two tph between London and Sheffield
  • One tph between London and Corby.

From December 2021, there will be two tph between London and Corby.

The maximum number of services between London and Kettering on the electrified section currently envisaged is only six tph or one train every ten minutes.

As the Class 700 trains on Thameslink are capable of using digital signalling and all the new trains will also be similarly equipped, I wouldn’t be surprised that the theoretical capacity of the electrified fast lines could be higher than the proposed six tph. |Especially, when digital signalling is installed.

The number of trains in the fleet, is much more of a limit on services, than the capacity of the Midland Main Line.

If all trains were ten cars, the following numbers of trains would be needed.

  • Current two tph – 32 trains
  • Increase to three tph – 48 trains
  • Increase to three tph – 64 trains

Are there enough passengers to fill all these trains?

Does St. Pancras Have Enough Capacity?

St. Pancras station has four platforms for Midland Main Line services.

  • The platforms are long enough to take two five-car Class 222 trains,.
  • They would surely accommodate a ten-car formation of the new Hitachi trains.
  • Each platform can probably handle three or four tph, giving a total capacity of 12-16 tph.

As four tph to Nottingham and Sheffield and two tph to Corby is only a total of ten tph, there is enough platform capacity for several years to come.

If there is a problem, it is that the large numbers of passengers would overwhelm the stairs and escalators between the ground level of the station and the platforms.

I am certain, that just like the Eurostar platforms at St. Pancras, the Midland Main Line platforms will need better passenger access and facilities.

Will it even be enough, when up to six tph, all of which could be 240 metres long, start to arrive in December 2021?

What could be done to help solve the capacity problem at St. Pancras station in the future?

Better Access To The Midland Main Line Platforms

Consider.

  • Space is limited to add extra escalators, lifts and places to wait
  • St. Pancras is a Grade I Listed Building.
  • As I don’t travel through the station in the Peak, the escalators seem to always be going the wrong way.

Improving the current access will be very difficult.

This Google Map shows the Northern End of the station.

Note.

  1. The Midland Main Line platforms are the two island platforms on the left.
  2. The Southeastern HighSpeed platforms are the two island platforms on the right.
  3. The Eurostar platforms are the three island platforms in the middle.

Could a second entrance to some of the platforms be built here?

It would be very difficult, unless the extension was future-proofed when it was built.

Underground Improvements

Getting between the Midland Main Line platforms and the Underground is an obstable course.

As a Londoner, who’s had the operation to have the Underground Map implanted in my brain, I generally go to the Midland Main Line platforms at St. Pancras by taking one of the following.

A bus from close to my house to outside the station.

  • A Metropolitan Line train from Moorgate
  • A Northern Line train from Angel.
  • A Piccadilly Line train from Manor House
  • A Victoria Line train from Highbury & Islington

The last four need a bus to get to the Underground.

I usually come back home, by spending just over a tenner on a black cab!

Crossrail 2

Crossrail 2 should improve matters, but will it ever be built?

Will The New Brent Cross Thameslink Station Allow Cross Platform Interchange Between Midland Main Line and Thameslink Services?

Consider.

  • The proposed Brent Cross Thameslink will be just North of Cricklewood station.
  • Midland Main Line services through the station would be six tph.
  • Thameslink services through the station would be fourteen tph
  • The West London Orbital Railway could be built to connect the station to High Speed Two and Heathrow

Would it take the pressure off St. Pancras?

It might do, if a cross-platform interchange could be arranged.

Could Some Midland Main Line Services Use Thameslink?

Consider.

  • The obvious service to go through Thameslink would be the two tph service between Corby and St. Pancras.
  • Thameslink is currently setup to handle 24 tph, but it has been designed for 30 tph.
  • The Corby service will stop at Kettering, Luton and Luton Airport Parkway, to the North of London.
  • It could perhaps terminate at the soon-to-be-rebuilt Gatwick Airport station in the South.

It might work!

Especially, if Kettering station were to be rebuilt to have cross-platform interchange between Corby sewrvices and the bi-mode ones going further North.

Splitting And Joining Trains

In Rock Rail Wins Again!, I gave this simple example of how the splitting and joining capability of Hitachi AT-300 trains can be used.

A ten-car train might leave St. Pancras as two five-car units running as a pair. It could split at East Midlands Parkway station and one train could go to Nottingham and the other to Derby. Coming South the two trains would join at East Midlands Parkway.

I feel that Derby, East Midlands Parkway and Leicester are ideal stations on the Midland Main Line, where services could be split and joined.

  • They have at least four platforms.
  • The platforms are long and straight.

The two terminals at Nottingham and Sheffield could also probably be used to enable services to serve more destinations.

Shorter trains must have advantages on some routes.

  • Capacity is better matched to demand.
  • Platforms may not need to be extended.
  • Services can be run by a driver and a conductor.

Will Abellio East Midlands Railway use splitting and joining to increase the coverage of their services?

Great Western Railway’s Class 800, 801 and 802 trains have the capability to split and join and the operator doesn’t seem to use it. Although, they do split and join Class 387 trains.

Extended Services To And From The North And East

The ability to split and join, that could be used to extend services to the North And East.

Serving Barnsley, South Yorkshire And Leeds

Consider.

I wonder if there are paths and need for a London and Sheffield service to split at Sheffield with, the two five-car trains going to different destinations.

  • Leeds via Rotherham, Barnsley Dearne Valley and Wakefield Westgate, is one possibility.
  • Could a service go to Huddersfield?
  • Hull is probably too far.

One tph could terminate at Sheffield and one splitting and one tph could split and serve other destinations.

Advantages could include.

  • Barnsley and Rotherham get a direct hourly service to London.
  • South Yorkshire and Leeds have a direct hourly service to the East Midlands.
  • Sheffield and Leeds have an hourly fast service.

I’m sure Abellio have a very workable plan to improve services North of Sheffield.

Serving Lincolnshire And Nottinghamshire

Consider.

  • Splitting and joining at Nottingham may allow an increase in direct services to and from Lincoln.
  • Perhaps parts of North Lincolnshire could be well-served by a fast train from Nottingham.
  • Would Mansfield and Worksop benefit from a direct service from London on the Robin Hood Line, after a reverse at Nottingham.

The five-car trains give the flexibility to do the previously unthinkable.

Conclusion

There is a lot of developments that can or will happen with Midland Main Line services.

August 1, 2019 Posted by | Transport | , , , , , , | 4 Comments