Why Do Some Train Operators Still Buy Half-Trains?
This picture shows the unloved-by-SWR Class 707 trains.
South Western Railway‘s predecessor; South West Trains bought thirty of these trains and SWR is replacing them with Class 701 trains.
Sixty of these new trains will be ten-cars in length and thirty will be five-car.
Why?
Consider.
- Most Class 707 trains, always seem to run as ten-car units, formed of two trains.
- There are four cabs, rather than two.
- A ten-car Class 701 train has twenty more seats than two five-car trains.
- Including standing passengers, a ten-car Class 701 train has eight percent more capacity, than two five-car units.
- Staff have to get out of the train and back in, to go between the front and back of the train.
- I’ve even seen trains delayed because the conductor was helping a disabled passenger in the other train.
Running two half-trains as a full-size train must surely be more stressful for the staff and more uneconomic for train operators.
The only place for five-car trains, is surely on routes with short platforms.
The Cut-And-Paste Aventra
It should also be noted that Bombardier’s new Aventras and other recently-designed trains, can be cut and pasted to adjust the trains that an operator needs.
At the present time, services on the Gospel Oak to Barking Line, which can only accept four-car trains are being run by four-car Class 378 trains, which have been shortened from their normal five-car length by removing a car.
So for instance if on a route, South Western Railway needed to run eight-car trains due to a temporary length restriction, they could shuffle a ten-car and a five-car train to get an eight-car and a seven-car,
In a list of Aventra variants, the following are detailed.
Tfl Rail
Class 345 trains will be nine-car, but currently they are running as seven-cars.
London Overground
Class 710 trains will be used in three ways.
- As pairs of eight-cars on the Lea Valley Lines.
- As four-cars on the Gospel Oak to Barking Line and the Watford DC Line.
- As five-cars on the North London Line.
It has puzzled me, why the Lea Valley sets are not to be built as eight-car trains and I discuss this in Latest On The New London Overground Class 710 Trains.
Greater Anglia
Class 720 trains will be `22 ten-car and 89 five-car trains.
I think that Greater Anglia have some routes, that cannot accept ten-car trains.
As I showed for Hertford East station in Could London Overground Extend To Hertford East Station?
So will we be seeing some creative shuffling to get a tailored fleet, with perhaps some eight-car trains for routes like those to Hertford East?
I think that six ten-car trains and four five-car trains can be converted into ten eight-car trains.
South Western Railway
Class 701 trains will be 60 ten-car trains and 30 five-car trains.
Do South Western Railway need a sub-fleet of eight-car trains?
They can easily create one, by shuffling the trains.
West Midlands Trains
Class 730 trains will be 36 three-car trains and 45 five-car trains.
These are like-for-like replacements of the current fleet.
c2c
Class 711 trains will be six ten-car trains.
They will be replacing Class 387 trains on a short-term lease.
Conclusion
It appears to me, that for the train operator to have maximum flexibility, that you need to start with a long train and a short train and be able to shuffle cars around to get the train fleet you need.
Certainly a fleet of both ten-car and five-car Aventras gives you the possibility of creating a sub-fleet of eight-car trains.
Interestingly, the Hitachi Class 800 trains appear to have a similar ability.
737 MAX, Airbus And Aventra
I think that there are parallels between these plains and trains.
The 737 MAX is a conventional fifty-year-old design of aircraft, that has been updated with modern technology through the years.
When Airbus designed their fly-by-wire systems about thirty years ago, they were duplicated with two independent systems, programmed by separate teams. I think that the plane could fly on one system, if the other failed. Ittook time to develop, but no-one questions its reliability today.
The design and some of the things it gets up to, like moving fuel around to balance the aircraft help to increase the efficiency of the aircraft.
Efficiency and low pilot workloads help to sell aircraft.
Boeing is now trying desperately to catch up, but doing this in an ageing design appears to be difficult.
One thing I wonder is that is misloading of cargo a problem in the two 737 MAX crashes.
Supposing there was an imbalance of cargo on an Airbus! Would the plane’s computer realise this and move fuel to conpensate? Boeing must rely on a conventional approach using the flying controls.
Boeing are obviously worried as they have installed a special anti-stall conputer system called MCAS.
So what has this got to do with Bombardier’s Aventra train, that is suffering from software problems causing delays.
The Aventra is a radical design, that rewrites the rules, just like Airbus did. It relies heavily on a sophisticated computer system to control everything and bring a higher level of efficiency.
It will take time to get right, but just as Airbus did all those years ago, I believe they will.
The Aventra will change train design by as much as Airbus have changed airliner design.
Dwell Times And End Doors
Chris Stokes finishes his column in the January 2019 Edition of Modern Railways, with this paragraph.
Dwell times remain critical too. The new TransPennine units provide more seats, but have single end doors. For an operation with high numbers joining and alighting at many stops, dwell times are going to increase significantly at stations such as Manchester Victoria, Huddersfield, Leeds, Boltonand Preston, chewing up any savings in running times, and exacerbating the problems at platforms 13 and 14 at Manchester Piccadilly.
I haven’t seen a TransPennine Mark 5A coach in the flesh yet, but I’ve seen several pictures, which show each coach has single end doors.
This picture of the 100 mph Class 755 train shows the door layout is totally different.
It looks like it has a single double door on each coach.
It appears that the electric Class 745 trains have more doors.
If you look at a typical Bombardier Aventra or Electrostar, Stadler Flirt or Siemens Desiro City, there are generally no end doors.
Have CAF commited a design crime of the highest order?
Or is it TransPennine’s fault?
Do Aventras Use Supercapacitors?
In this article in Global Rail News from 2011, which is entitled Bombardier’s AVENTRA – A new era in train performance, gives some details of the Aventra’s electrical systems. This is said.
AVENTRA can run on both 25kV AC and 750V DC power – the high-efficiency transformers being another area where a heavier component was chosen because, in the long term, it’s cheaper to run. Pairs of cars will run off a common power bus with a converter on one car powering both. The other car can be fitted with power storage devices such as super-capacitors or Lithium-ion batteries if required. The intention is that every car will be powered although trailer cars will be available.
Unlike today’s commuter trains, AVENTRA will also shut down fully at night. It will be ‘woken up’ by remote control before the driver arrives for the first shift
This was published over seven years ago, so I suspect Bombardier have refined the concept.
The extract makes three interesting points.
All Or Most Cars Will Be Powered
In A Detailed Layout Drawing For A Class 345 Train, I give the formation of a Crossrail Class 345 train.
DMS+PMS+MS1+MS3+TS(W)+MS3+MS2+PMS+DMS
Note.
- M signifies a motored car.
- Eight cars have motors and only one doesn’t.
- The train is composed of two identical half-trains, which are separated by the TS(W) car.
- There are four wheelchair spaces in the TS(W) car.
Are the MS!, MS2 and MS3 cars identical?
In addition, I have been told, that all cars in Class 720 trains are motored.
It does seem that Bombardier have fulfilled their statement from 2011.
Remote Wake-Up
This is mentioned in the extract, but there are few other references to it. I quoted a report from the Derby Telegraph, which has since been deleted, in Do Bombardier Aventras Have Remote Wake-Up?.
Supercapacitors And Lithium-Ion Batteries
According to the extract, the trains have been designed to accept supercapacitors or lithium-ion batteries if required.
As the other two statements in the extract appear to be likely, I will continue to believe that all Aventras can have some form of energy storage.
Crossrail
I’ll look first at Crossrail’s Class 345 train.
In How Much Energy Does A Crossrail Class 345 Train Use?, using the train’s data sheet, I came to the conclusion, that electricity usage of the trains is 2.67 KWh per car per kiometre or 3.29 KWh per car per mile.
In the linked post, I also calculate the kinetic energy of a fully-loaded nine-car Crossrail train.
I’ll repeat it.
- If I take a nine-car Class 345 train, this has a mass of less than 350 tonnes and a maximum speed of 145 kph.
- 1500 passengers at 80 kg each works out at another 120 tonnes.
- So for this crude estimate I’ll use 450 tonnes for the mass of a loaded train.
This gives the train a kinetic energy of 101 KWh.
As the Class 345 trains are effectively two half trains, with two PMS cars with pantographs, it is likely that they have at least two cars that are ready for supercapacitors or lithium-ion batteries.
The Design Of Crossrail
Crossrail could best be described as the Victoria Line on steroids.
- Both lines were designed to run in excess of twenty-four trains per hour (tph) across London.
- The Victoria Line was built to deep-level Underground standards, with one of the most advanced-for-its-time and successful train operating systems of all times.
- Crossrail is a modern rail line being built to National Rail standards, with world-leading advanced technology, that takes full account of modern environmental standards and aspirations.
Costs were saved on the Victoria Line by leaving out important parts of the original design..
- The route was cut back to Walthamstow Central, from the proposed terminus at Walthamstow Wood Street or possibly South Woodford or Woodford.
- Some stations like Highbury & Islington were built to a totally inadequate low-cost design.
- Third escalators at stations were changed into stairs.
- Step-free access was non-existent at the opening, but has been added to some stations since.
- Cross platform interchange with the Chingford Branch Line was left out at Walthamstow Central station.
Costs were saved on Crossrail, by using high-quality design.
- Crossrail and the Great Western Main Line electrification share a sub-station to connect to the National Grid.
- The number of ventilation and access shafts was reduced significantly, with one in a new office block; Moor House.
- Electrification uses a simple overhead rail, which is only fed with power at the ends.
I also believe that the Class 345 trains, which were designed specifically for the route, were designed to save energy and increase safety in the tunnels.
Regenerative braking normally saves energy by returning braking energy through the electrification, so it can be used to power other nearby trains.
Batteries For Regenerative Braking
However, in recent years, there has been increasing interest in diverting the braking energy to onboard energy storage devices on the train, so that it can be used when the train accelerates or to power systems on the train.
The system has these advantages.
- Less energy is needed to power the trains.
- Simpler and less costly transformers can be used for the electrification.
- The onboard energy storage can be used to power the train after an electrification failure.
- In tunnels, there is less heat-producing electricity flowing in all the cables.
Obviously, keeping the heat down in the tunnels is a good thing.
A Station Stop On Crossrail Using Regenerative Braking And Energy Storage
Imagine a fully-loaded train approaching a station, at the maximum speed on 145 kph.
- The train will have a kinetic energy of 101 kWh.
- As it approaches the station, the brakes will be applied and the regenerative brakes will turn the train’s energy into electricity.
- This energy will be stored in the onboard energy storage.
- As the train accelerates away from the station, the electricity in the onboard energy storage can be used.
The only problem, is that regenerative braking is unlikely to recover all of the train’s kinetic energy. But this is not a big problem, as the train draws any extra power needed from the electrification.
To make the system as efficient as possible, the following must be fitted.
- The most efficient traction motor.
- Onboard energy storage capable of handling the maximum kinetic energy of the train.
- Onboard energy storage with a fast response time.
The train will probably be controlled by a sophisticated computer system.
What Size Of Onboard Energy Storage Should Be Fitted?
Obviously, this is only speculation and a best guess, but the following conditions must be met.
- The onboard energy storage must be able to capture the maximum amount of energy generated by braking.
- The physical size of the energy storage system must be practical and easily fitted under or on the train.
- The energy storage system should be able to store enough energy to be able to move a stalled train to safety in the event of complete power failure.
Note that an energy storage system with a 100 kWh capacity would probably take the train somewhere around four to five kilometres.
Obviously, a series of computer simulations based on the route, passengers and various other conditions, would indicate the capacity, but I feel a capacity of around 120 kWh might be the place to start.
Where Would The Energy Storage Be Placed?
With nine cars, and with eight of them motored, there are a several choices.
- One energy storage unit in all motored cars.
- One energy storage unit in the three MS cars.
- One energy storage unit in each half train.
I’ve always liked the concept of an energy storage unit in each powered car, as it creates a nice tight unit, with energy stored near to where it is generated and used.
But there is another big advantage in splitting up the energy storage – the individual units are smaller.
Could this mean that supercapacitors could be used?
- The main need for onboard energy storage is to handle regenerative braking.
- The secondary need for onboard energy storage is for emergency power.
- There is no needon Crossrail as yet,to run the trains for long distances on stored power.
- Supercapacitors are smaller.
- Supercapacitors can handle more operating cycles.
- Supercapacitors run cooler.
- Supercapacitors have a fast response.
If running for longer distances were to be required in the future, which might require lithium-ion or some other form of batteries, I’m sure there will be space for them, under all those cars.
I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that Crossrail’s Class 345 trains are fitted with supercapacitors.
Note, that a Bombardier driver-trainer, talked of an emergency power supply, when I asked what happens if the Russians hacked the electrification.
Class 710 Trains
London Overground’s Class 710 trains are a bit of a mystery at the moment as except for a capacity of seven hundred passengers disclosed in this article on the International Railway Journal little has been published.
Here are my best guesses.
Formation
Based on the formation of the Class 345 trains, I think it will be.
DMS+PMS+MS+DMS
Effectively, this is a half-train of a seven-car Class 345 train, with a DMS car on the other end.
Dimensions
I have a Bombardier press release, which says that the car length is twenty metres, which is the same as Class 315, Class 317 and Class 378 trains and a whole load of other trains, as twenty metre cars, were a British Rail standard.
I doubt there will be much platform lengthening for these trains in the next few years.
Weight
The Wikipedia entry for Aventra gives car weight at between thirty and thirty-five tonnes, so the train weight can be anything between 120-140 tonnes.
Passenger Capacity
I wrote about this in The Capacity Of London Overground’s New Class 710 Trains.
This was my conclusion.
It appears that seven hundred is the only published figure and if it is, these new Class 710 trains are going to substantially increase public transport capacity across North London.
They are certainly future-proofed for an outbreak of London Overground Syndrome, where passenger numbers greatly exceed forecasts.
As some of the trains are being delivered as five-car units, there is always the option of adding an extra car. Especially, as the platforms on the line, seem to have been built for five or even six car trains.
London Overground have not made the platform length miscalculations of the North and East London Lines.
For the near future they’ll hold around 700 passengers at 80 Kg. each, which means a passenger weight of fifty-six tonnes.
Full Train Weight
For various train weights, the fully-loaded trains will be.
- 120 tonnes – 176 tonnes
- 130 tonnes – 186 tonnes
- 140 tonnes – 196 tonnes
Until I get a better weight for the train, I think I’ll use 130 tonnes or 186 tonnes, when fully-loaded.
Speed
I wrote about this in What Is The Operating Speed Of Class 710 Trains?.
This was my conclusion.
But what will be the operating speed of the Class 710 trains?
I said it will be somewhere between 145 kph (90 mph) and 160 kph (100 mph)
Consider.
- I think that 145 kph, will be able to handle the two planned increased frequencies of four tph.
- 145 kph is identical to the Crossrail trains.
- 160 kph is identical to the Greater Anglia trains.
- 160 kph seems to be the speed of suburban Aventras.
It’s a difficult one to call!
I do think though, that trundling around the Overground, they’ll be running at the same 121 kph of all the other trains.
Kinetic Energy
The kinetic energy of a 186 tonnes train at 121 kph is 29 kWh.
Could Supercapacitors Handle This Amount Of Energy?
I’m pretty certain they could.
Conclusion
Supercapacitors are a possibility for both trains!
I’ll review these calculations, as more information is published.
Batteries In Class 378 Trains Revisited
Two and a half years ago, I wrote Will London Overground Fit On-board Energy Storage To Class 378 Trains?.
This post effectively updates that post, with what we now know.
As far as I know, batteries have not been fitted to the Class 378 trains, but there have been other developments involving Bombardier since.
Aventras
The linked post was based on statements by Marc Phillips of Bombardier in this article in Rail Technology Magazine entitled Bombardier enters key analysis phase of IPEMU. He also said about Aventras.
Bombardier is also looking at battery options on new builds, including its Aventra platform.
I have stated several times including in Rail Magazine, that the Class 345 trains for Crossrail must have batteries and no-one has told me that I’m wrong.
Battery Train Applications
The Rail Technology article also says this.
Bombardier has started assessing potential customers for battery-powered trains, looking first at branch line applications. Batteries could be a solution allowing non-continuous electrified infrastructure, and emergency rescue and last-mile opportunities.
The article was written three and a half years ago and I suspect Bombardier have been busy researching the technology and its applications.
The High-Speed Bi-Mode Aventra With Batteries
This train was first reported to be in development in this article in Rail Magazine, which was entitled Bombardier Bi-Mode Aventra Could Feature Battery Power.
The article stated the following.
- Battery power could be used for Last-Mile applications.
- The bi-mode would have a maximum speed of 125 mph under both electric and diesel power.
- Bombardier’s spokesman said that the ambience will be better, than other bi-modes.
I very much believe that the key to the performance of this train is using batteries to handle regenerative braking in both electric and diesel modes.
In Mathematics Of A Bi-Mode Aventra With Batteries, I looked at how the train might operate.
Bombardier with better data and the latest mathematical modelling techniques have obviously extensively modelled the proposed trains and prospective routes.
No sane company listed on a Stock Exchange would launch such a product, if it didn’t know that the mathematics of the dynamics and the numbers for the accountants didn’t add up.
Voyagers With Batteries
In Have Bombardier Got A Cunning Plan For Voyagers?, I discuss a snippet found in the July 2018 Edition of Modern Railways, in an article entitled Bi-Mode Aventra Details Revealed.
In a report of an interview with Bombardier’s Des McKeon, this is said.
He also confirmed Bombardier is examining the option of fitting batteries to Voyager DEMUs for use in stations.
Batteries appear to be being proposed to make the trains more environmentally-friemdly and less-noisy.
Talent 3 With Batteries
Bombardier have launched a version of their Talent 3 train with batteries. This is the launch video.
Some of Bombardier’s points from the video.
- Emission-free
- The current range is forty kilometres
- The range will be extended to a hundred kilometres by 2020.
- Charging for forty kilometres takes between seven and ten minutes from overhead electrification.
This looks to be a serious train with orders from German train operators.
It would appear that Bombardier are very serious about the application of batteries to both new and existing trains.
Class 378 Trains And Batteries
What could batteries do for the Class 378 trains?
It looks like over the next few years, the Class 378 trains will be increasingly used on the East London Line, as they have the required evacuation capability for the Thames Tunnel.
Various documents indicate that to maximise capacity on the line, the following may happen.
- Some or all services may go to six trains per hour (tph)
- Trains may be lengthened to six-cars from five-cars.
Extra destinations might be added, but although this could be easy in South London, it would probably require a lot of station or platform development in the North.
Trains Required For The East London Line
If you look at the timing of the East London Line, you get the following journey times for the four routes.
- Highbury & Islington to West Croydon – 52-57 minutes
- Dalston Junction to New Cross – 24 minutes
- Highbury & Islington to Crystal Palace – 46 minutes
- Dalston Junction to Clapham Junction – 47-48 minutes
It could almost have been choreographed by Busby Berkeley.
This means that to run four tph on the routes needs the following number of trains.
- Highbury & Islington to West Croydon – 8 trains
- Dalston Junction to New Cross – 4 trains
- Highbury & Islington to Crystal Palace – 8 trains
- Dalston Junction to Clapham Junction – 8 trains
Which gives a total of 28 trains.
To make all these services six tph, would require the following number of trains.
- Highbury & Islington to West Croydon – 12 trains
- Dalston Junction to New Cross – 6 trains
- Highbury & Islington to Crystal Palace – 12 trains
- Dalston Junction to Clapham Junction – 12 trains
Which gives a total of 42 trains.
At present only the Crystal Palace and Clapham Junction routes have dates for the extra trains and if only these routes were increased in frequency, there would be a need for 36 trains.
Six-Car Trains
The trains might also go to six cars to increase capacity on the East London Line.
As I indicated in Will The East London Line Ever Get Six Car Trains?, cars could be used from the five-car trains not needed for the East London Line.
You would just end up with a number of three- and four-car Class 378 trains, that could be used on other routes with less passengers.
My conclusion in Will The East London Line Ever Get Six Car Trains? was this.
It will be interesting to see how London Overground, increase capacity in the coming years.
There are fifty-seven Class 378 trains in total, which have the following formation.
DMOS-MOS(B)-PTOS-MOS-DMOS
They can be lengthened and shortened, by adding or removing MOS cars.
As an extra MOS car was added to convert all trains from four-cars to five-cars a few years ago, I suspect it is not the most difficult of processes.
It should also be noted that the original three-car trains for the North London Line had the following formation.
DMOS-PTOS-DMOS
If all East London Line routes go to six tph, the required number of trains would be forty-two.
This would leave a surplus of fifteen trains to act as donors for lengthening.
To make all trains six-cars would require a further forty-two MOS cars.
Reducing the trains not needed for the East London Line to three-cars, would yield thirty MOS cars.
This could give the following fleet.
- Thirty six-car trains.
- Twelve five-car trains
- Fifteen three-car trains
To lengthen all trains needed for six-cars would require another twelve MOS cars to be obtained.
Some services could be run with five-car trains, but I don’t think that be a good idea.
I am inevitably led to the conclusion, that if the the Class 378 trains need to be extended to six-cars, then Bombardier will have to produce some more cars.
Adding Batteries To A Six-Car Class 378 Trains
Batteries would be added to Class 378 trains for all the usual reasons.
- Handling energy from regenerative braking.
- Health and safety in depots and sidings.
- Short movements on lines without electrification
- Emergency train recovery
But there might also be another important use.
The Thames Tunnel is under five hundred metres long.
As the only trains running through the tunnel are Class 378 trains, it might be possible and advantageous to run services on battery power through the tunnel.
I will estimate the kinetic energy of a six-car Class 378 train, as the batteries must be able to handle the energy of a full train, stopping from maximum speed.
- The empty train will weigh around 192 tonnes
- The maximum speed of the train is 75 mph.
- The train will hold 1050 passengers, who I will assume each weigh 90 Kg with baggage, bikes and buggies.
- This gives a fully loaded train weight of 286.5 tonnes.
Using the Omni Kinetic Energy calculator gives an kinetic energy of 45 kWh.
If four 100 kWh batteries can be fitted under a two-car Class 230 train, then surely a reasonable amount o capacity can be fitted under a six-car Class 378 train.
These pictures show the under-floor space on a dual-voltage Class 378/2 train.
As a six-car train will have five motored cars, why not put one 50 kWh battery in each motored car, to give a capacity of 250 kWh.
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 how far would a six-car Class 378 train go with a fully-charged 250 kWh battery?
- 5 kWh per vehicle mile – 8 miles
- 4 kWh per vehicle mile – 10 miles
- 3 kWh per vehicle mile – 14 miles
- 2 kWh per vehicle mile – 20 miles
This is only a crude estimate, but it shows that fitting batteries to a Class 378 train with batteries could give a useful range.
Adding Batteries To A Three-Car Class 378 Trains
The same calculation can be performed for a three-car train created by removing the two MOS cars.
- The empty train will weigh around 96 tonnes
- The maximum speed of the train is 75 mph.
- The train will hold 525 passengers, who I will assume each weigh 90 Kg with baggage, bikes and buggies.
- This gives a fully loaded train weight of 143.3 tonnes.
Using the Omni Kinetic Energy calculator gives an kinetic energy of 22.4 kWh.
Unsurprisingly, the kinetic energy of the three-car train is around half that of a six-car train.
As a three-car train will have two motored cars, why not put one 50 kWh battery in each motored car, to give a capacity of 100 kWh.
Using the Ian Walmsley formula gives the following ranges.
- 5 kWh per vehicle mile – 7 miles
- 4 kWh per vehicle mile – 8 miles
- 3 kWh per vehicle mile – 11 miles
- 2 kWh per vehicle mile – 17 miles
When you consider that the length of the Greenford Branch Line is 2.5 miles, these ranges are very useful.
Routes For Three-Car Class 378 Trains With Batteries
I would suspect that these trains will have the following specification.
- Dual-voltage with ability to use either 25 KVAC overhead or 750 VDC third-rail electrification.
- A maximum speed of 75 mph
- Three cars
- Passenger capacity of 525 passengers.
- Range of between seven and fifteen miles
So for what routes would the train be suitable?
Brentford Branch Line
There have been various ideas for reopening the freight-only Brentford Branch Line to passenger traffic.
The simplest proposal would be to run a two tph shurttle train Southwards from Southall station.
As the branch is only four miles long, I believe that a three-car Class 378 train, which ran on battery-power and charged at Southall station could work the branch.
Greenford Branch Line
I’ve already mentioned the 2.5 mile long Greenford Branch Line.
The following work would need to be done before the trains could be used.
- Electrification of the bay platform at West Ealing with 25 KVAC overhead wires.
- Electrification of the bay platform at Greenford with 750 VDC third-rail.
- Minor lengthening of the bay platform at Greenford to allow sixty metre long trains.
- An extra crossover at the West Ealing end of the branch.
With these modifications it might be possible to run four tph on the branch.
Romford To Upminster Line
Currently, the Romford-Upminster Line uses a single train to shuttle the three miles at a frequency of two tph.
If the passing loop were to be reinstated, I believe that two trains could run a four tph service.
Using battery-power on the line and charging on the existing electrification at either end of the line might be a more affordable option.
It should be noted that increasing the current two x four-car tph to four x three-car tph, would be a doubling of frequency and a fifty percent increase in capacity.
West London Orbital Railway
The West London Orbital Railway is outlined like this in Wikipedia.
The West London Orbital is a proposed extension to the London Overground that makes use of a combination of existing freight and passenger lines including the Dudding Hill Line, North London Line, and the Hounslow Loop. The route runs for approximately 11 miles from West Hampstead and Hendon at the northern end to Hounslow at the Western end via Brent Cross West, Neasden, Harlesden, Old Oak Common, Acton and Brentford.
This is one of those plans, which ticks a lot of boxes.
- The tracks are already in existence.
- There is a proven need.
- Passenger numbers would support at least four tph.
- The route connects to Crossrail and HS2.
- Changing at Old Oak Common to and from Crossrail gives a quicker route to Heathrow for many in West London.
- There is electrification at both ends of the route, with only four miles without any electrification.
- At only eleven miles, it could be run by electric trains under battery power.
- The cost is quoted at around £250 million.
- Studies show it has a benefit cost ratio of 2.2:1.
As the route is now being promoted by the Mayor of London, I have a feeling this route will be created in time for the opening of HS2 in 2025.
If you want to know more about the proposals, this document on the Brent Council web site, which is entitled West London Orbital Rail, was written by consultants WSP to analyse the proposals and give a cost.
This is paragraph 5.4.38
At this stage we are assuming that the railway will be operated by diesel traction, or possibly battery or hybrid traction. While the Kew – Acton and Dudding Hill Line sections are not electrified, all the rest of the line is and battery technology may have developed sufficiently by the time of opening to be a viable option. Therefore, potential subsequent phases of the
enhancement plans could electrify the non-electrified sections.
The consultants go on to say, that stabling for diesel trains is more difficult to find in London than for electric..
The route would be suitable for Class 378 trains with batteries, but the consultants say that four-car trains will be needed.
So four-car Class 378 trains with a battery capability will be needed.
Alternatively, new four-car Class 710 trains, which I’m certain are built around a battery capability could be used instead.
A rough estimate says that for the full service of two four tph routes will need a total of eight four-car trains.
This is a much-needed route with definite possibilities.
Should A Battery MOS Car Be Designed?
If the Class 378 trains are lengthened to six cars, it looks like there will be a need for at least twelve new MOS cars.
I wonder, if it would be better to design a new BMOS car with batteries, that could either be created from an existing MOS car or newly-built.
The car would have the following specification
- It would be able to replace any current MOS car.
- It would contain the appropriate size of battery.
The advantages of a compatible new BMOS car are.
It would not require any modifications to the PTOS or DMOS cars, although the train software would need to be updated.
It would make it possible to easily create trains with a battery option with a length of four and five cars.
Could The PTOS Car Be Updated With Batteries?
This could be a logical way to go, if a battery of sufficient size can be fitted in the limited space available with all the other electrical gubbins under the floor of a PTOS car.
These pictures show a Class 378/2 PTOS car.
Modifying only the PTOS cars would give the following advantages.
- Only the PTOS car would need to be modified.
- PTOS cars for Class 378/1 trains would be 750 VDC only.
- PTOS cars for Class 378/2 trains, would be dual-voltage.
- Only PTOS cars for Class 378/2 trains would have a pantograph.
I will propose that the PTOS car is fiited a 100 kWh battery.
This would be sufficient for the six-car East London Line services, as all it would do was handle the regenerative braking energy, which has a maximum value of just 45 kWh. Battery range of the train would be between three and five miles, which would be enough to recover the train if power failed.
For three-car trains, the 100 kWh ranges would be as I calculated earlier.
- 5 kWh per vehicle mile – 7 miles
- 4 kWh per vehicle mile – 8 miles
- 3 kWh per vehicle mile – 11 miles
- 2 kWh per vehicle mile – 17 miles
Which is a very useful range.
If some four-car trains, were built by adding a new MOS car, the ranges on 100 kWh batteries would be.
- 5 kWh per vehicle mile – 5 miles
- 4 kWh per vehicle mile – 6 miles
- 3 kWh per vehicle mile – 8 miles
- 2 kWh per vehicle mile – 12.5 miles
As the Dudding Hill Line is only four miles long with electrification at both ends, these four-car Class 378 trains would be able to work the routes of the West London Orbital Railway.
Conclusion
Fitting batteries to Class 378 trains opens up a lot of possibilities.
One scenario could be.
- Forty-two six-car trains for the East and |South London Lines.
- One three-car train for the Brentford Branch Line
- Two three-car trains for the Greenford Branch Line.
- Two three-car trains for the Romford to Upminster Line.
- Eight four-car trains for the West London Orbital Railway.
There would be two spare three-car trains and another twenty MOS cars would be required.
.
