Why We Should Use Independently-Powered Electric Trains
I was looking for something else and found this article in the Henley Standard entitled Goring rail line work ‘will ruin countryside’. This is said.
THE electrification of the railway line through Goring will ruin the surrounding countryside, say residents.
Network Rail is installing overhead power cables as part of the scheme, which covers the route between Reading and Oxford and is expected to be finished next year.
Last week contractors began felling trees and putting up steel lattice gantries which will span the track at regular intervals to hold the wires in place.
You can argue that on a major line like the Great Western Main Line, we need robust overhead wire systems, as many of us have suffered serious delays on lines like the East Coast Main Line and the Great Eastern Main Line because of the flimsy overhead wire design.
But still the residents have a point and I think there must be a better design that mitigates the visual intrusion. Would Jasper Maskelyne and others skilled in the art of camouflage have ideas to assist Network Rail?
Network Rail can get it right, as is shown at the Grade 1 Listed Wharncliffe Viaduct, where the overhead wires are arranged to reduce the visual impact.
Are they usually as measured about where they place a gantry, as they have been on the viaduct?
Away from main lines, there will be lines like the Settle and Carlisle and the Hope Valley Line, where visual intrusion will be very important and activists will attempt to stop the installation.
It is for places like this where we must have independently-powered trains to service the route. There are two available technologies.
Electro-Diesel Trains
At the present time, there is only one electro-diesel train planned in this country and that is the Hitachi Class 800 train, which soon be seen on the Great Western Main Line and the East Coast Main Line.
They are a solution to the problem and can switch between propulsion modes at line speed, but they require diesel engines to be lugged around the country for where they are needed, so they may not be as efficient as a purely electric train.
There seems to be a few ideas for electro-diesel trains, but none appear to be comng to fruition.
Electric Trains With On-Board Energy Storage (IPEMU)
I rode the Class 379 train, that had been converted to act as a demonstrator for this technology.
It was impressive, as we trundled through the Essex countryside powered by energy stored in batteries, that had been charged from the overhead wires.
The fact that the technology works is all down to the physics of steel wheels on steel rails, which make train travel efficient in the first place.
As an electrical engineer, I know that this is technology, that can only get better.
- Electricity storage, whether based on batteries, flywheels, capacitors or some other method, will only get better.
- Trains will roll better through improvements in design.
- Energy harvesting from sources like regenerative braking will be more comprehensive.
- Secondary electrical systems on trains like air-conditioning, toilets and the provision of wi-fi will use less electricity.
- Automatic control systems will control the train tightly according to schedule, terrain and signals to minimise electricity use.
- Pantograph deployment will be automatic, when overhead wires are available.
But using the on-board storage to power the train on its route, is only one of the reasons it will be installed.
- If a train has on-board storage and regenerative braking, it will be more efficient.
- When the overhead line gets damaged or the power supply is cut, an electric train with on-board storage might still get through.
- Depots can have simplified electrification, which is safer for staff.
Bombardier must be impressed with the concept, as all Aventra trains will be wired so that on-board energy storage can be fitted.
Conclusion
Both technologies for independently powered trains are proven, but you wouldn’t want to use on-board energy storage over more than a limited distance, beyond which the diesel would be ideal.
By using independently powered trains, you can balance electrification cost, installation disruption and visual intrusion against the extra cost of a train with on-board storage or diesel engines.
Provided of course, the independently powered train can handle the route to the satisfaction of passengers and rail companies!
On the Great Western Main Line because of the distances involved and the reliability required, electric trains using overhead power on robust supports are probably the best method we have at present.
Although, Great Western Railway have been reported as saying they might use Class 387 trains with an IPEMU capability to destinations a few miles off the Great Western Main Line, like possibly Bedwyn and Oxford.
Reaction In The North To Rail Franchise Awards
I have been browsing the local papers in the North, to see the area’s reaction to the award of the new Northern and TransPennine franchises.
This article in the Liverpool Echo is entitled 4,000 more seats in £1.2bn boost for North West trains, which seems a very positive headline. This is the first paragraph.
Nearly 4,000 more seats on Liverpool and Manchester services during the morning peak and a new, direct Liverpool to Glasgow service were among the promised benefits of a trains package announced today.
They use a lot of positive language and only have a slight worry about what it will mean for fares.
This extract from another article, may be a bit parochial, but it is proud of Liverpool’s involvement in formulating the winning bids.
Merseytravel – who were involved in drawing up the specifications for the bidders – said there was a commitment to four fast services an hour between Lime Street and Manchester and two per hour between Liverpool, Leeds and York, as well as more services to Preston.
There will also be an early Northern service from Lime Street to Manchester Airport (arriving no later than 4.45am), and daily services to Manchester Airport via both Newton-le-Willows and Warrington Central.
It is also positive and just as I found in the city, when they introduced the Class 319s electric to Manchester Victoria, Merseysiders seem to be looking forward to better services.
Coverage on the Manchester Evening News, like this article entitled Hundreds of new carriages promised as Arriva and FirstGroup win Greater Manchester rail franchises, seems to be more cynical and snipes at Arriva for other issues. It doesn’t have the practical tone of the Liverpool reporting.
For instance, the Liverpool reporting stresses the much better service to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Newcastle, but despite Manchester will get a doubling of Scottish services, it isn’t given the same prominence.
Across in Leeds, the Yorkshire Post has an article entitled December 10: New age of the train – or not? This said.
Unlike previous deals which did not foresee the untapped potential of this region’s railways, Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin has used this opportunity to insist that the new franchise-holders invest in new rolling stock to help ease overcrowding on rush-hour trains. Yet it remains to be seen whether these operators, and their partners, can deliver the “world class rail service” envisaged by Mr McLoughlin and which is so integral to the much-vaunted Northern Powerhouse which aims to improve connectivity between major cities.
It looks to me that the Yorkshire character is shining through.
So on this quick look Liverpool is more positive and Manchester and Leeds are a tad negative.
Could it be that of the three cities, Liverpool is very proud of its locally-managed franchise, Merseyrail and are those in the area bigger train users than people to the East?
I also suspect, that at present, Liverpool with the electric trains to Manchester, has benefited most from rail dvelopment in the last few years.
If You Think Network Rail Have Got Problems
I found this article on Global Rail News entitled Sweden’s longest rail tunnel finally opens.
The article is about the nine kilometre long, Hallandsås Tunnel. This is said.
The €1.2 billion Hallandsås Tunnel was finally opened by Sweden’s Minister for Enterprise and Innovation, Mikael Damberg, and Trafikverket director general Lena Erixon on December 8.
Construction had started in 1992.
So I looked up the Wikipedia entry for Hallandsås Tunnel. It is certainly an epic saga of biblical proportions.
This is a section entitled 1990s: Problems, scandal, and stoppage.
Construction began in 1992, and the traffic opening was originally planned for 1995. However, construction was plagued by major difficulties concerning large amounts of water seeping in from surrounding rock, only a small fraction of which had been foreseen. Additionally, the original drill, which was said to drill 100 meters per week, broke down after drilling only 18 m (59 ft). The rock was too soft, so the machine could not use it to pull itself forward. The contractor tried to drill traditionally, but had to spend a lot of effort on sealing the water leaks. The contractor went bankrupt and a new contractor, Skanska, was contracted. The new contractor had similar trouble but a better contract that gave compensation for troublesome rock conditions.
A scandal broke out when it was learned that a poisonous sealing compound Rhoca-Gil was used during construction. This substance was linked to the death of nearby livestock. Rhoca-Gil contains acrylamide, a toxic chemical that is mutagenic and possibly carcinogenic. The main contractor, Skanska, took no special precautions for the sealant, nor did it tell its own workers or the local population of the risks. By October 1997, local cattle and fish started dying and workers were becoming ill. The local press started an investigation. After tests were done showing high levels of acrylamide contamination, the site was declared a high risk zone and the sale of agricultural products from the region was banned. Skanska, along with Rhone-Poulenc and Swedish Railways all had criminal charges brought against them; some senior executives resigned as a result.
Construction was halted in late 1997. By this time, nearly 3 km (1.9 mi) had been bored in each tunnel: 1,200 m (3,937 ft) at the north end, 1,700 m (5,577 ft) at the south end, and 40 m (131 ft) at the central adit).
Wikipedia also says this about the cost of the tunnel.
Cost overrun has been large. The cost was expected in 1992 to be 1 billion Swedish krona (SEK). The cost from 1992 to 1997 was in reality more than SEK 2 billion, for less than half the tunnel length. Since the remaining cost at the beginning of 2005 was calculated to be more than SEK 4 billion, there was initially much debate and hesitation as to whether to halt or resume work. The total cost is likely to reach over SEK 10.5 billion (approximately 1.25 billion USD as calculated in 2015), before the project is finished.
Network Rail’s problems at Farnworth tunnel were tiny by comparison.
Theresa May Is On The Right Track
This article on the Maidenhead Advertiser entitled Theresa May discusses need for more parking at Maidenhead and Twyford stations with Crossrail chief, caught my eye! It says this.
Home Secretary Theresa May has met with the chief executive of Crossrail to discuss concerns about the need for sufficient car parking spaces at Maidenhead and Twyford stations.
She is right to bring this up.
Obviously, the Central London stations have very little car parking or even a need for it, but get into the outer reaches of the line as in Theresa May’s constituency and car parking is thin on the ground.
In my view each of the branches of the line need a decent Park-and-Ride site.
If nothing more, than to take the pressure off the M25.
Has The Government Parked Its Trains On Nicola Sturgeon’s Lawn?
The government has just published a document entitled Government intends to award Northern franchise to Arriva Rail North Ltd, and TransPennine Express franchise to First Trans Pennine Express Ltd.
The document starts like this.
The government promised passengers in the north and Scotland a world class rail service that would make the Northern Powerhouse a reality – today that is being delivered as new contracts for Northern and TransPennine Express franchises are awarded.
In some ways the proposals for Scotland are the most interesting.
Introducing new and additional services for Scotland, including a new, direct Liverpool to Glasgow service from December 2018 with new electric trains and extending existing services beyond Newcastle to Edinburgh from December 2019, and bringing in additional services from Manchester to Glasgow and Edinburgh from December 2017.
These will mean new electric trains and First TransPennine will be ordering forty-four new five-car trains.
I think the announcement will go down well in Scotland, although some politicians and others might be a bit miffed.
Is TransPennine Going For A One-Class Fleet?
This report on Rail News announces the awards of the two rail franchises in the North.
It says that First TransPennine will be committed to acquiring forty-four new trains comprising 220 vehicles. The article also says this about increasing services.
The frequency on many routes will be increased, so that there will be six trains an hour between Manchester and Leeds, and 35 a day between Manchester and Scotland — twice as many as now. A new route between Liverpool and Scotland will be introduced in 2019.
The numbers say they are five-car trains, which will certainly sort out some of their capacity problems.
At present First Transpennine has the following fleet.
- Class 156 DMU – 6 of two cars
- Class 170 DMU – 4 of two cars
- Class 185 DMU – 51 x 3 cars
- Class 350 EMU – 10 x 4 cars
All except the Class 350 are diesel-powered.
Add up the current carriages and you get two hundred and three.
So if some of diesel multiple units were retained, there would be a useful increase in fleet size.
But surely from the train maintenance and staff points of view, it would be better if there was one fleet of all the same type of train.
There may also be a slight problem with Scottish services, especially as the number of them is more than doubled.
This will mean that between Preston and Glasgow, they will need extra paths on the overcrowded West Coast Main Line.
I think we’ll see trains between Manchester Airport and Liverpool, and Glasgow, joining and splitting at Preston, as this will mean that Liverpool to Scotland services will not need any extra paths on the West Coast Main Line. Some could also split at Carstairs, with one train going to Glasgow and the other to Edinburgh.
I’ve used the Class 350 trains from Glasgow to Preston and despite being too small, they are also only 110 mph trains, whereas the Class 390 Pendelinos used by Virgin, usually run at 125 mph.
Simple common sense says, that if all trains cruised up the West Coast Main Line at the same speed, this maximises capacity. Also as parts of the TransPennine network in the East are also 125 mph lines, this might be desireable design speed. The government press release about the franchise award also talks about 125 mph trains.
But the biggest problem as is pointed out in the press release is that full electrification is not expected to be complete until 2022.
So trains will need some form of independent power source to bridge the gaps in the electrification.
- Five carriages
- The ability to run in pairs.
- 125 mph cruising speed.
- Some form of independent power.
Logic says that this means they will be Hitachi Class 800 trains, which would use their on-board diesel engines as required.
Currently, the factory at Newton Aycliffe is busy with Class 800/801 trains for Great Western Railway and Virgin Trains East Coast and EMUs for Scotland, so like the extra Class 800s for the South Western routes, they would probably have to be built in Japan.
Would this mean that early introduction into service would be very difficult?
The only alternative would be to stretch the current four car Class 387 trains to five cars and make them IPEMU variants, which would then use their on-board energy storage to bridge gaps in the electrification. If the technology can be proven for a route like Leeds to Manchester, then they could probably start to be delivered next year.
These are some points and questions about Class 387 trains and Bombardier’s IPEMU technology.
- Class 387 trains are built in Derby by Bombardier.
- There are currently a total of fifty seven four-car Class 387 trains either built or on order.
- There must be some standard Class 387 trains sitting in sidings, as they are destined for routes on the Great Western Railway, where there are no overhead wires.
- I doubt it would be difficult to lengthen the trains to five cars, as the closely-related Class 378 trains have received an extra car twice.
- This report in the Derby Telgraph, says that Bombardier have recently received an award for their IPEMU technology.
- This article in Rail Technology Magazine, states that Bombardier are doing extensive testing of the batteries at Mannheim
- IPEMU trains could be more efficient, as regenerative braking is used to recover energy instead of always recharging from external sources.
- As IPEMU technology improves, the range will get longer making it possible for electric trains to serve more destinations in the TransPennine network.
- Bombardier’s next generation train, called the Aventra, will all be wired for the fitting of on-board energy storage,
- The new franchise for First TransPennine has effectively started, as it just a continuation of more of the same. So early train delivery would show they meant business and it wasn’t just jam tomorrow.
- The standard Class 387 trains could be introduced on Scottish services as soon as trains were delivered.
If the IPEMU technology can be proven to be viable on First TransPennine, a lot of companies and groups will benefit.
- Network Rail will be able to avoid a lot of difficult, sensitive or expensive electrification.
- Bombardier could sell a few more trains.
- Passengers will get new electric trains in many places, as fast as they can be built.
- Some politicians and others could get a lot of credit.
It’ll be interesting to see what First TransPennine have decided to do!
By Rail From Bedford To Northampton
One of my Google Alerts picked up this article from the Northampton Chronicle, which is entitled Rail campaigners reject calls by St James residents to re-open Northampton link road.
There used to be a Bedford to Northampton Line, but it has been gradually abandoned, despite interest in using it for the following.
- As an extension to Thameslink to Northampton.
- As a freight route to the West Midlands.
I also feel that with Bedford likely to be an important station on the East-West Rail Link, surely the rail link to Northampton shouldn’t be compromised, so that it can’t be reinstated.
- It would make journeys between Cambridge, Ipswich and Norwich and Northampton and the West Midlands a lot easier.
- Freight from between Felixstowe and the West Midlands would have an alternative route.
I don’t think anything will happen soon, but the expansion of Thameslink and the East West Rail Link to Bedford will make everybody think.
An Easy Extension To The Midland Metro?
In between my two sets of pictures of the Midland Metro in Birmingham City Centre, I took a trip out from Bull Street to Wednesbury. This Google Map shows the tram at Wednesbury.
Trams At Wednesbury
The tram route curves across the bottom, with the depot to the south of the route.
Note the dark scar crossing the tram route at right angles to the East of the tram depot. This is the South Staffordshire Line, that has been proposed as conversion into an extension of the Midland Metro from Wednesbury to Merry Hill.
One complication is that Network Rail have plans to convert the disused line into a freight route. But then if the Class 399 tram-train trial in Sheffield goes well, then why not use them here?
In some ways one of the great advantages of this extension, is that it could share the depot at Wednesbury. Also, as all the land for the junction between the two lines is probably owned by Network Rail or the tram, it probably wouldn’t be difficult to build the junction, so that trams on the branch can go to both Birmingham and Wolverhampton.
It is interesting to note, that after a slow start, expansion of the Manchester Metrolink is now moving on apace.
Is the Midland Metro going to do the same?
The Midland Metro Extension Is Nearly There!
The Midland Metro is now running into Birmingham City Centre by bypassing Birmingham Snow Hill station and running initially to a stop at Bull Street. I visited Birmingham today and took these pictures.
Note the following.
- There are two sets of pictures. In the first, I walked to Bull Street and in the second I took the tram there.
- The tram route enters Birmingham City Centre on a viaduct alongside Snow Hill station.
- It would appear that the stop at Birmingham Snow Hill station is being built on the viaduct.
- The stop at Corporation Street is still being built.
- There would appear to be no stop alongside New Street station.
I can’t see the line opening for a few months yet.
So Near And Yet So Far!
This Google Map shows the geographical relationship between Northfleet station on the North Kent Line and Ebbsfleet International station on the High Speed 1 Rail Link.
Northfleet And Ebbsfleet International Stations
Note Swancombe station at the top left, which is also on the North Kent Line.
In my view the designers of High Speed 1, lost sight of the ball here, just as they did at Stratford International station.
To many people and especially to a lot of rail commentators and builders, connectivity is very important, as it often gives passengers the ability to do difficult journeys easily with a simple cross-platform interchange.
If you look at the positions of Northfleet and Ebbsfleet International stations, as the crow flies it is about four hundred metres. But to walk it along the A226, Thames Way and a loop into Ebbsfleet International station took me thirty-eight minutes.
I took these pictures as I walked.
I am left with the following conclusions.
- Northfleet station appears to only stand up because the woodworm keep holding hands.
- Northfleet station is very welcoming to visitors to the town!
- The current route is a badly-signposted disgrace.
- I didn’t see any signposts pointing the other way.
- It would be a nightmare in bad weather.
- It is a step-free route.
It would not be the most difficult feat of engineering to build a walkway from Northfleet station to the Car Park C on the Northfleet side of Ebbsfleet International station.
Incidentally, the Ebbsfleet International station web site says this about getting to the station by rail.
If you can’t reach us direct then we’re just a 10 minute walk from Northfleet domestic station which is serviced by the North Kent Line.
For my age and health, I can walk reasonably fast, but it took me over three times as long. Did they hire Mo Farah to do the time test?
I think someone measured it on a map as four hundred metres and said that he or she could walk it in ten minutes.
If they did, it is downright incompetence.
I challenge Eurostar to find anybody over sixty-five, who doesn’t have form as an athlete, to walk the signposted route in ten minutes!
If they find someone, who can do it, I’ll give fifty pounds to Railway Children!
The Anonymous Widower 