The Anonymous Widower

GE To Partner BNSF On Battery Freight Locomotive Tests

The title of this post is the same as that of this article on Rail Engineer.

The article includes this image.

I think that there are some mixed up captions on the image.

It talks about Massive Power Generation Capabilities up to 2400 kWhrs.

kWhrs are a unit of total energy and could refer to the battery storage capability of the locomotive.

If you look at our much smaller ubiquitous UK diesel freight locomotive, the Class 66, this has a power output of 2,460 kW.

If the GE locomotive, which is experimental had a battery of 2400 kWh, then it could supply 2400 kW for an hour.

But the concept seems sound, where the battery electric locomotive would be paired with a diesel locomotive to haul a freight train. Fuel savings of ten percent are expected.

A Diesel/Electric/Battery Hybrid Locomotive For The UK

I could see a practical diesel/electric/battery locomotive being developed for the UK.

A Class 66 Replacement

Over four hundred of the these locomotives were built and they are currently used by these operators  in the UK.

Which adds up to a surprisingly precise four hundred locomotives.

  • They have a power output of 2,460 kW – Call it 2500 kW for ease of calculation.
  • They have a top speed of 75 mph, although some can only manage 65 mph.
  • They weigh 68 tonnes.
  • They are noisy, smelly and don’t meet the latest EU pollution regulations.
  • Class 66 drivers, I’ve spoken to, are not keen on the working environment.

But they do various jobs for their operators competently and are not the most expensive of locomotives.

There are also other modern similar-sized diesel locomotives like the thirty Class 67 and thirty-seven Class 70, but these are not as unfriendly, to the environment and staff.

Many of the Class 66 locomotives pull heavy freight trains on routes that are fully or partly electrified like the East Coast Main Line, West Coast Main Line, Great Western Main Line, Midland Main Line and Great Eastern Main Line. The services are diesel-hauled because at the ends of the route, they need to use diesel power.

A specification for a locomotive to replace the long-haul Class 66 locomotives for working fully or partly-electrified routes could be something like.

  • Power on electrification of upwards of 3000 kW.
  • Ability to move a heavy freight train in and out freight terminals to and from electrification.
  • Ability to do a small amount of shunting.
  • Sufficient diesel or battery power to handle the train, away from electrification.
  • Ability to switch between electric and diesel/battery power at line speed.

I’ve heard from those who work at the Port of Felixstowe, that port operators wouldn’t electrify the port, for both cost and Health and Safety reasons.

The Felixstowe Problem

The Port of Felixstowe is at the end of the twelve mile long Felixstowe Branch Line, which is not electrified.

Trains seem to be allocated up to just over an hour for the journey between the Great Eastern Main Line and the Port.

This would mean that any proposed locomotive must be capable of handling a branch line to a port or freight depot remote from the electrified network.

Similar problems exist at other ports and freight depots including Hull, Immingham, Liverpool, Southampton, Tilbury and Teesport.

The Southampton Problem

If anything, the Port of Southampton has the worst problem, in that it only has access to the third-rail electrification South of the Thames, until freight trains reach Reading, where there is 25 KVAC overhead electrification. It looks like that trains take about ninety minutes between the Port of Southampton and Reading.

Even, if a powerful dual-voltage locomotive were to be available, I doubt that the power supply to the electrification could provide enough power.

The proposed solution to the Southampton problem was the Electric Spine, which would have linked the port to Northern and Central England with a 25 KVAC overhead electrified route.

It has now been largely cancelled.

An alternative would be a locomotive, that could pull a heavy freight train between the Port of Southampton and Reading in an environmentally-friendly way.

One point to note is that a Class 92 locomotive is rated at 4000 kW on 750 VDC third-rail electrification.

Thoughts On A Battery Locomotive

Suppose an operator needed a battery locomotive to go between Southampton and Cardiff, that would be a straight replacement for a Class 66 locomotive.

The proposed battery locomotive  would need to be able to supply the 2500 kW of the Class 66 locomotive for two hours to handle the route between Reading and Southampton.

So it would need a battery capacity of around 5000 kWh, which is twice the size of the American test locomotive. A battery this size would probably weigh around fifty tonnes.

The electro-diesel Class 88 locomotive would probably weigh around eighty tonnes without the diesel engine. So would it be possible to design an electric locomotive incorporating a 5000 kWh battery, with a weight of perhaps one hundred and forty tonnes.

  • It would be about eleven tonnes heavier than a Class 70 locomotive.
  • It would probably need to be a Co-Co locomotive, to reduce the axle-loading.
  • It might need to be longer than other comparable locomotives to have enough space for the battery.
  • The battery would handle the energy generated by the regenerative braking.
  • It could have the 4000 kW power of a Class 88  locomotive.
  • It should probably be designed with a 100 mph top speed and the ability to haul passenger trains
  • It would be able to use both 25 KVAC overhead and 750 VDC third-rail electrification.

If it is not possible now, as battery energy densities improve, it will be in a few years time.

Other countries other than the UK need such a locomotive and I am certain at least one manufacturer in Europe will build a locomotive to this or a similar specification.

A Battery/Electric Locomotive And Felixstowe

Handling the Felixstowe Branch Line would entail the following.

  • The locomotive must enter the branch with a battery containg enough energy for the sixty minute run to the Port.
  • As the locomotive would probably have hauled a train from London or Haughley Junction using the existing electrification, a full enough battery probably wouldn’t be difficult.
  • In the Port, there could be a charging station for the locomotive, where they would connect to a short length of 25 KVAC overhead electrification.
  • On leaving the Port, the locomotive would start with a full battery.
  • Trains going South to London would run on electrification as far as they could and would arrive with a full battery.
  • Trains going West to Peterborough, would hopefully be able to top up their battery between Ipswich and Haughley Junction, where they would enter the section without electrification to Peterborough, which takes between two and two-and-a half hours.

It should be noted that, freight trains often wait at Ely in a passing loop alongside the station, to keep out of the way of passenger trains. As Ely is electrified with 25 KVAC, this loop could be electrified, so that locomotives could sneak a top-up during the wait.

I am fairly certain, that a 4000 kW electric locomotive fitted with a 5000 kWh battery could handle all freight services to and from the Port of Felixstowe, at least as far as London and Peterborough.

A Battery/Electric Locomotive And Southampton

Trains hauled by a battery/electric locomotive on this route, could probably take advantage of the third-rail electrification to top-up the battery as required, which would make it very likely that a 4000 kW electric locomotive fitted with a 5000 kWh battery could handle the route with ease.

From Reading routes to Bristol, Cardiff and London are fairly easy, but the problems start, if trains need to go to Oxford, Birmingham or the Midlands and the North.

This is where the Electric Spine would have been useful

I have traced some trains from Southampton to the Midlands and the North.

  • Southampton to Birch Coppice – There is a three hour section without electrification from Didcot to Birch Coppice.
  • Southampton to Birmingham Freightliner Terminal – There is a two-and-a half hour section without electrification from Didcot to the terminal.
  • Southampton to Castle Bromwich Jagiuar – There is a two-and-a-half-hour section without electrification from Didcot to Castle Bromwich Jaguar.
  • Southampton to Liverpool – There is a two hour section without electrification from Didcot to Coventry.

All of these services are routed through Didcot, Oxford and Banbury. Extending the planned electrification between Didcot and Oxford to Banbury would probably reduce the amount of time on battery power by around thirty minutes.

The Stadler Class 88 Battery/Electric Locomotive

As Stadler seem to have a monopoly of new locomotives in the UK at present, I will look at their proven Class 88 locomotive.

  • It has a power of 4,000 kW on electricity.
  • It has a power of 700 kW using an onboard diesel.
  • It has a top speed of 100 mph.
  • The Caterpillar C27 diesel engine weighs around seven tonnes.
  • The locomotive has regenerative braking.

The locomotive is certainly no weakling on electricity, although performance, when pulling a heavy freight train on diesel might be desired to be better. This article on Rail Magazine is entitled Inside Direct Rail Services. This is an extract about the pulling ability of the Class 88 locomotive.

Sample performances over the northern section of the West Coast Main Line (Preston –Carlisle–Mossend) demonstrate that Class 88 can operate the same train weight to the same schedule as Class 68 using 15% less energy. Alternatively, it offers a 45-minute time advantage over a ‘68’ and 80 minutes for Class 66. This gives a competitive edge because a significant proportion of movement costs are absorbed by fuel.

When hauling the maximum permitted load of 1,536 tonnes on the 1 in 75 banks on this route, Class 88 has a balancing speed of 34mph in electric mode or 5mph in diesel mode. Taken together, all these factors helped Class 88 win the Rail Freight Group ‘Rail Freight Project of the Year’ Award in the Innovation and Technical Development category this year.

The locomotive doesn’t appear to be a wimp.

But could the Class 88 locomotive be fitted with a battery?

Current energy storage technology seems to be able to store about 100Wh/kg. So on this basis a seven tonne battery would store about 700 kWh.

I think in a few years it would be possible to build a version of a Class 88 locomotive with no diesel engine and a battery with a 1000 kWh capacity.

But even so, the 1000 kWh battery may be too small.

Would it be able to handle these important routes with a full-length freight train?

  • Haughley Junction to Peterborough
  • Peterborough to Doncaster via Lincoln
  • Peterborough to Nuneaton.
  • Southampton to Reading
  • Immingham to Doncaster

However, Stadler and Direct Rail Services will be able to extensively model the performance of a battery/electric Class 88 locomotive pulling various weights of freight train on different routes in the UK.

The modelling would show how much battery capacity would be needed for various routes.

Suppose though the battery capacity needed was say 2400 kWh, as I suspect has been specified by the Americans for their locomotive. This might be too heavy and large for the small Class 88 locomotive

But just as the Americans are using their battery/electric locomotive in combination with a diesel locomotive, why not run the battery-electric Class 88 locomotive as a pair with a standard electro-diesel Class 88 locomotive?

Conclusion

My modelling experience says that there is a solution in there.

I suspect that Jo Johnson’s dream of removing diesel from UK railways will take a big step forward in the next decade, when a battery/electric locomotive with sufficient performance becomes available.

I also believe that short lengths of electrification like Oxford to Banbury, may increase the range of an electric/battery locomotive.

 

October 22, 2018 Posted by | Travel | , , , | Leave a comment

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.

 

 

.

 

 

October 21, 2018 Posted by | Travel | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Porterbrook Makes Case For Battery/Electric Bi-Mode Conversion

The title of this post is the same as that of this article on Global Rail News.

This is the first paragraph.

Rolling stock leasing company Porterbrook is working on a prototype battery/electric bi-mode Class 350/2 to demonstrate the technology’s viability to train operators.

So why would you fit batteries to an electric train like a Class 350 train?

Range Extension

An appropriately-sized battery can be used to power the train on an extension or branch line without electrification.

The classic route in London is the Barking Riverside Extension of the Gospel Oak to Barking Line.

Until someone says otherwise, I believe this short route will be built without electrification and the Class 710 trains will run on this route using stored battery power.

In my article in Issue 856 of Rail Magazine, I said this.

London is also designing and building another rail line, which will be used only by Aventras – The Barking Riverside Extension of the Gospel Oak and Barking Line.

I have read all of the published Transport for London documents about this extension and although electric trains are mentioned, electrification is not!

The extension is only a mile of new track and trains could leave the electrified c2c line with full batteries.

It would not be difficult to go to Barking Riverside and back on stored power.

Benefits would include.

  • Less visual and audible intrusion of the new railway.
  • Simpler track and station design.
  • It might be easier to keep the railway at a safe distance from all the high voltage electricity lines in the area, that bring power to London.
  • A possibly safer and more reliable railway in extreme weather.
  • Costs would be saved.

No-one has told me, I’ve got it wrong.

Handling Regenerative Braking Energy

Normally, the energy generated by regenerative braking is returned through the overhead wires or third-rail  to power nearby trains.

This does save energy, but it does have drawbacks.

  • What happens if there are no nearby trains?
  • The transformers and systems that power the track are more complicated and more expensive.

As trains slow and accelerate continuously, would it not be better if regenerative energy could be used to accelerate the train back up to line speed?

The train would need an intelligent control system to decide whether to use power from the electrification or the batteries.

In my view, a battery on the train is the obvious way to  efficiently handle the energy from regenerative braking.

Handling Power Failures

Electrification failures do occur for a number of reasons.

If trains have an alternative power supply from a battery, then the driver can move the train to perhaps the next station, where the train can be safely evacuated.

I believe that Crossrail uses battery power for this purpose.

Electrically Dead Depots And Sidings

Depots and sidings can be dangerous places with electricity all over the place.

If trains can be moved using stored energy, then safer depots and sidings can be designed.

Remote Wake-Up

We’ve all got up early in the morning, to drive to work on a cold day.

One train driver told me, there was no worse start to the day, than picking up the first train from sidings in the snow.

I discuss, remote wake-up fully in Do Bombardier Aventras Have Remote Wake-Up?.

I suspect to do this reliably needs a battery of a certain size.

How Big Should The Batteries Be?

It is my belief, that the batteries on an electric train, must be big enough to handle the energy generated if a full-loaded train stops from maximum speed.

If we take the Class 350/2 train, as owned by Porterbrook, Wikipedia gives this information.

  • Maximum Speed – 100 mph
  • Train Weight – 175.5 tonnes
  • Capacity – Around 380 passengers

If I assume each passenger weighs 90 Kg with baggage, bikes and buggies, the train weight is 209.7 tonnes.

This could be a bit high, but if you’ve been on one of TransPennine’s Class 350 trains, you might think it a bit low.

Using Omni’s Kinetic Energy Calculator, I get the following kinetic energies at various speeds.

  • 60 mph – 20.9 kWh
  • 70 mph – 28.5 kWh
  • 80 mph – 37.2 kWh
  • 90 mph – 47.1 kWh
  • 100 mph – 58.2 kWh
  • 110 mph – 70.4 kWh
  • 120 mph  83.6 kWh

I have added the unrealistic 120 mph figure, to show how the amount of energy rises with the square of the speed.

As it would be advantageous for trains to run at 110 mph, the batteries must always have the capacity to handle at least 70.4 kWh, so perhaps 100 kWh would be a good minimum size.

How Much Battery Capacity Could Be Fitted Under A Train?

Wikipedia doesn’t give the formation of a Class 350 train, but it does give that of the similar third-rail version of the train; the Class 450 train.

  • DMSO(A)
  • TCO
  • TSO
  • DMSO(B)

Which is two identical Driver Motor Cars with two Trailer Cars in the middle. Looking at a Class 350 train in Euston, they appear to have a similar formation.

This page on the Vivarail web site is entitled Battery Train Update.

This is a paragraph.

Battery trains are not new but battery technology is – and Vivarail is leading the way in new and innovative ways to bring them into service. 230002 has a total of 4 battery rafts each with a capacity of 106 kWh and requires an 8 minute charge at each end of the journey. With a 10 minute charge this range is extended to 50 miles and battery technology is developing all the time so these distances will increase.

So it looks like Vivarail manage to put 212 kWh under each car of their two-car train.

This article on the Railway Gazette is entitled Battery-Powered Desiro ML Cityjet Eco Unveiled.

This is an edited version of the first two paragraphs.

An electric multiple-unit equipped with a prototype electric-battery hybrid drive system designed to enable through running onto non-electrified lines was unveiled by Siemens and Austrian Federal Railways in Wien on September 10.

The Desiro ML Cityjet Eco has been produced using a series-built version of the Desiro ML EMUs which Siemens is supplying to ÖBB. The middle car has been equipped with three battery containers with lithium-titanate batteries offering a total capacity of 528 kWh.

Although this train is designed for a different loading gauge, it is another Siemens product and they manage to fit 528 kWh in, on top or under one car.

I think, it would be reasonable to assume that around 400 kWh of batteries could be fitted under a Class 350 train.

These pictures show a Class 350 train at Euston.

Note that the trailer car with the pantograph has less free space underneath. I would assume that is because the transformer and other electrical gubbins are underneath the car to increase passenger space.

I’m certain there is space under a Class 350 train to fit an appropriate amount of storage.

What Battery Range Could Be Expected?

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 four-car Class 350 train go with a fully-charged 400 kWh battery?

  • 5 kWh per vehicle mile – 20 miles
  • 4 kWh per vehicle mile – 25 miles
  • 3 kWh per vehicle mile – 33.3 miles
  • 2 kWh per vehicle mile – 50 miles

Obviously, this is a very crude estimate, but it does show that the train could have a useful range on battery power.

But the following would increase the range of the train.

  • A low energy interior.
  • An increased battery capacity.
  • Two cars in the four-car train are trailers, so should have more space underneath.
  • Routes for battery trains could be reprofiled with gentle curves and gradients.
  • Terminal platforms could be fitted with charging stations.

In Did Adrian Shooter Let The Cat Out Of The Bag?, Mr Shooter talked about a range of forty miles at sixty mph for the battery version of a Class 230 train.

That distance, would open up a surprising number of routes for battery trains.

Should A Small Diesel Generator Be Fitted?

It is worth noting that Transport for Wales has ordered two battery trains.

  • Vivarail Class 230 trains for North Wales.
  • Stadler Flirts for South Wales

Both trains have diesel engines, that can be used to back-up battery power.

In addition the Class 801 train has a diesel generator to rescue the electric train, when the power fails.

Are Hitachi, Stadler and Vivarail just being safe or do their figures show that a diesel engine is absolutely necessary? After all, the diesel generator can be easily removed, if it’s never used.

I think if it was easy, whilst the new battery-powered train was being tested and on probation, I’d fit a small diesel generator.

Remote Battery Charging

Most of the charging would be done, whilst running on electrified lines, which could be either 25 KVAC overhead or 750 VDC third-rail.

But the trains would be ideal for the sort of charging system, that I wrote about in Is This The Solution To A Charging Station For Battery Trains?.

To use this Opbrid system, all the train needs is the ability to connect through a 25 KVAC pantograph, which the train already has.

As there is a lot of interest in battery trains throughout Europe, I suspect that a charging station will be a standard piece of equipment, that can be easily installed in a terminal platform or a turnback siding.

We could see important towns and cities like Barrow-in-Furness, Blackburn, Chester, Dundee, Harrogate, Huddersfield, Hull, Middlesbrough, Perth and Sheffield, which are within battery range of the electrified network, being served by electric trains , without the disruption of installing electrification.

An Updated Interior

The Class 350 trains were ordered around 2000 and don’t have the features that passengers expect, as these pictures show.

An update would probably include.

  • LED lighting.
  • Low-energy air-conditioning.
  • Wi-fi
  • Power sockets
  • USB sockets.

Other features would be cosmetic like new seat covers and flooring.

But overall, a better interior will surely reduce the energy needs of a train.

What Would Be The Maximum Speed?

The current maximum speed of Porterbrook’s Class 350/2 trains is 100 mph, but all other variants of the train are capable of 110 mph.

Under Description in the Wikipedia entry for the Class 350 train, this is said.

The top speed of the fleet was originally 100 mph (160 km/h), but all 350/1s were modified to allow 110 mph (180 km/h) running from December 2012, in order to make better use of paths on the busy West Coast Main Line.

So would the conversion to battery power, also include an uprating to 110 mph?

It would definitely be a prudent move, so as to make better use of paths on busy main lines.

Where Would These Trains Run?

I feel that Porterbrook will produce a four-car train with these characteristics.

  • 110 mph operating speed.
  • Forty or perhaps a fifty mile range on batteries.
  • Quality interior.
  • The ability to use a charging station in a terminal platform.

The Global Rail News article says this about possible use of the trains.

Engineers at Porterbrook have run models on a variety of routes, including the Windermere branch line and the West Coast main line, and believe a battery/electric bi-mode, known as a 350/2 Battery/FLEX, could offer various performance benefits.

The Windermere to Manchester Airport service would seem to be an ideal route  for the Class 350/2 Battery/FLEX trains.

  • Only ten miles are not electrified.
  • The trains could easily work the return trip on the Windermere Branch Line on battery power.
  • There would be no need for any charging station at Windermere station.
  • Much of the route is on the West Coast Main Line, where a 110 mph electric train would fit in better than a 100 mph diesel train.
  • As the trains would need a refurbishment, some could be fitted with an interior, suitable for airport travellers.
  • The trains would fit the ethos and environment of the Lake District.

As the route will soon be run by Class 769 trains, I suspect there would need to be no modifications to the tracks, stations and signalling, as both trains are bi-modes, based on four-car electric trains.

I have other thoughts about, where Class 350/2 Battery/FLEX trains could be used.

Interchangability With Class 769 Trains

Both the Class 350/2 Battery/FLEX and Class 769 trains are trains owned by Porterbrook.

They are also surprisingly similar in their size, performance and capabilities.

  • Both are four-car trains around eighty metres long.
  • Both can work on 25 KVAC overhead electrification and both could be modified to work on 750 VDC third-rail electrification.
  • Both are 100 mph trains, although it may be possible to uprate the Class 350/2 Battery/FLEX to 110 mph working.
  • Both trains can be fitted with modern interiors giving operators, passengers and staff what they need or want.
  • Many routes for bi-mode trains could be worked by either train.

There will be a few differences.

  • The Class 350/2 Battery/FLEX train is a pure electric train and more environmentally-friendly.
  • The Class 350/2 Battery/FLEX train could fit in better on a busy main line.
  • The Class 769 train will probably have a longer range away from electrification.
  • The Class 350/2 Battery/FLEX train is twenty years younger.

I think that this similarity will be used to advantage by Porterbrook and the train operating companies.

  • A Class 350/2 Battery/FLEX train would be an ideal replacement for a Class 769 train, when the latter needs replacing.
  • A Class 769 train could replace a Class 350/2 Battery/FLEX train, if say the latter was being serviced or repaired or perhaps the charging station at one terminus was out of action.
  • A Class 769 train could be used for route-proving for both trains.

Porterbrook wins every way, as they own both trains.

But I can also see a time, when the Class 769 trains become a reserve fleet to be used, when a train operating company is in urgent need of more capacity.

Around Electrified Conurbations

The UK has several conurbations with a lot of electrification.

  • Birmingham-Coventry-Wolverhampton
  • Edinburgh-Glasgow-Stirling
  • Leeds-Bradford-Doncaster-York
  • Liverpool-Manchester-Preston-Blackpool
  • London

Cambridge, Cardiff, Reading and Newcastle could also become major electrified hubs.

I suspect there will be a lot of routes for which these trains would be eminently suitable.

This is a selection of the easy routes, where there is electrification at one end of the route and a charging station could be added at the other, if required.

  • Doncaster to Hull
  • Dunblane to Perth
  • Glasgow Central To East Kilbride
  • Leeds to York
  • London Bridge to Uckfield
  • Manchester to Buxton
  • Manchester to Chester
  • Manchester to Clitheroe
  • Preston to Barrow-in-Furness
  • Preston to Blackpool South
  • Preston to Colne

In total, there must be at least twenty of these routes in the UK.

Trains Across The North Of England

It should be noted that Leeds to Stalybridge is about thirty-five miles by rail and both ends of the route are electrified.

So could these trains have sufficient battery capacity to enable Northern to run fast electric services between Blackpool, Chester, Liverpool, Manchester, Manchester Airport and Preston in the West to Hull, Leeds and York in the East?

If the Class 350/2 Battery/FLEX train has sufficient battery capacity and the speed limits on various sections of the East West routes are increased from some of their miserable levels, I believe that a much better service could be provided.

At over seventy miles long, the Settle-Carlisle Line, is probably too long for battery operation, especially as the route is not electrified between Skipton and Carlisle, which is nearly ninety miles.

The same probably applies to the Tyne Valley Line, which has just over sixty miles without electrification.

But it is called the Tyne Valley Line for a good reason, it runs alongside the River Tyne for a long way and looks to be not very challenging.

I wouldn’t rule out, that in a few years time, the route is run by a battery hybrid train, like the Class 350 Battery/FLEX.

The secondary route between Leeds and Lancashire is the Calder Valley Line via Hebden Bridge, which is not electrified between Preston and Bradford, which is a distance of fifty-three miles.

Electrification of this route and especially between Burnley and Bradford would be extremely challenging due to mthe numerous bridges and the terrain, with the added complication of the Grade II Listed Hebden Bridge station.

It would be pushing it, but I believe the Class 350 Battery/Flex train could handle it.

There is a plan to reconnect Skipton in Yorkshire to Colne in Lancashire to create another route across the Pennines.

The trains would need to travel the forty-two miles between Preston and Skipton using battery power, but it would create a valuable route at an affordable cost, if no electrification was used.

What would improve the running of the routes via Hebden Bridge and Colne, would be to electrify the route between Preston and Blackburn, which would reduce the distance to be run on battery power by twelve miles.

The Hope Valley Line runs between Sheffield and Manchester Piccadilly and is forty-two miles long without electrification.

This route certainly needs a modern four-car train and I believe that the Class 350 Battery/FLEX train could handle it.

But it would need a charging station at Sheffield.

On this rough and ready analysis, it looks like the three Southern routes and a new one via Colne could be handled successfully by a Class 350 Battery/FLEX.

Summing up the gaps West of Leeds we get.

  • Bradford and Manchester Victoria via Hebden Bridge – 40 miles
  • Sheffield and Manchester Piccadilly via Hope Valley Line – 42 miles
  • Stalybridge and Leeds via Hudderfield – 35 miles
  • Preston and Skipton via Colne – 42 miles

If the Class 350 Battery/FLEX train can do around fifty miles on battery power, which I suspect is a feasible distance, then these trains could give Northern an electric stopping service on all their routes across the Pennines.

In my view the system could be improved by the following projects.

  • Electrify between Preston and Blackburn and possibly Burnley Manchester Road.
  • Electrify between Manchester Victoria and Todmorden.
  • Renew the crap electrification between Manchester Piccadilly and Glossop, with an extension for a few miles along the Hope Valley Line to perhaps New Mills Central and Rose Hill Marple.
  • Tidy up the electrification between Leeds and Bradford and extend it to the Northbound East Coast Main Line.

But the most important thing to do, is to increase the line speed on the routes across the Pennines.

Greater Anglia and Network Rail are talking about ninety minutes for the 114 miles between London and Norwich, which is an average speed of 76 mph.

Liverpool Lime Street to York is about the same distance and TransPennine take around 110 minutes for the journey, which is an average speed of around 60 mph.

  • Both journeys have a few stops.
  • Both routes are or will be run by 100 mph trains.
  • The East Anglian route is electrified, but trans-Pennine is not.

The big difference between the routes, is that large sections of the East Anglian route can be run at 100 mph, whereas much of the Trans-Pennine route is restricted to far lower speeds, by the challenging route

Sort it!

Electric traction will make a difference to the acceleration, but it doesn’t matter if they get their power from overhead wires or batteries!

Putting up overhead wires on the current route will be throwing good money after bad, unless the track is fixed first.

Liverpool Lime Street to York should be ninety minutes in a Class 350 Battery/FLEX.

The Scottish Breakout

Finally, the electrification in the Scottish Central Belt is on track and the Scots are seeing the benefit of modern electric trains.

Trains like the Class 350 Battery/FLEX could be the key to extending Scotland’s growing network of electric trains.

In A Railway That Needs Electric Trains But Doesn’t Need Full Electrification, I described how the 11.5 mile service between Glasgow Central and East Kilbride station could be run by an electric train using batteries, which would be charged using the 25 KVAC overhead wires at the Glasgow end of the route.

If the Class 350 Bettery/FLEX train existed, they could work this route, as soon as drivers and other staff had been trained.

With a forty mile range on batteries, trains could reach from the electric core to many places, like Dumbarton, Perth and possibly Dundee.

It should be noted that Dundee is just under fifty miles from Dunblane, where the current electrification will end, so with a charging station in one of the bay platforms at Dundee, a Class 350 Battery/FLEX should be able to bridge the gap.

They could even probably handle the current Borders Railway, with a charging station at Tweedbank.

Scotland would not need to acquire a fleet of Class 350 Battery/FLEX, as they already have a fleet of Class 380 trains, which I am certain could be re-engineered in the same way to become battery/electric trains.

ScotRail may need a few more electric trains, but they could always keep the Class 365 trains, that have been used as cover for the much-delayed Class 385 trains.

South Western Railway

South Western Railway don’t have any obvious needs for a train like a Class 350 Battery/FLEX train.

But consider.

  • They do have 127 Class 450 trains, which are the third-rail version of the Class 350 train, so could probably be converted into a Class 450 Battery/FLEX.
  • They have ten Class 158 and thirty Class 159 diesel trains, some of which work partially-electrified routes.
  • British Rail-era third-rail systems have their deficiencies in places.
  • There are proposals and some plans to reopen branch lines to the West of Basingstoke and Southampton.
  • The Class 450 trains could be converted to dual-voltage operation, as they have a pantograph well.

So perhaps a few Class 450 Battery/FLEX trains could be a useful possibility.

  • Basingstoke to Salisbury is thirty-six miles and with a charging station at Salisbury, an electric service between Waterloo and Salisbury could be run.
  • Salisbury to Southampton Central is twenty-five miles.
  • Waterloo to Corfe Castle and Swanage, if it was decided to run this Saturday service, more frequently.

I also suspect that a Class 450 Battery/FLEX would give South Western Railway several operational and energy-efficiency advantages, which could lead to financial advantages.

I doubt though that the trains would have the capability to reach Exeter, as that is just too far.

These trains would also be ideal for the for the following services, run by other operators.

  • London Bridge to Uckfield.
  • The Marshlink Line.
  • Reading to Gatwick, where they would replace the proposed Class 769 trains.

Converting these three lines to electric traction, would remove the final diesel passenger services from Kent and Sussex.

Other Routes

Use your imagination!

Conclusion

Porterbrook have just dropped an enormous flower-smelling bomb, into the electrification and train replacement plans of UK railways.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

October 18, 2018 Posted by | Travel | , , , | 2 Comments

A Tale Of Two Trains

Last week I attempted to have rides in two ground-breaking trains.

Some months ago, I also had an early public run in a Crossrail Class 345 train.

The latter trains have now been introduced more fully into service, although there are still some Class 315 trains in service between Liverpool Street and Shenfield stations.

Transport for London performed the introduction with plenty of well-trained staff about to both handle any problems and ask passengers for feedback.

It was all very professional and despite Crossrail’s well-reported lateness, it is difficult to find bad reports about the performance of the Class 345 trains between Liverpool Street and Shenfield.

Vivarail’s Class 230 Train

I went to the Bo’ness and Kinneil Railway, to see this train last Wednesday and wrote about the train in Battery Class 230 Train Demonstration At Bo’ness And Kinneil Railway.

This service was not a paid-for public service but a free demonstration open to all, who wanted to turn up.

Many people did for the first run at 11:00 and they looked to be a mixture of locals, people with transport interests, families and enthusiasts.

Vivarail came mob-handed with engineers, designers, public relations staff and the Chairman; Adrian Shooter.

There was no restrictions as to who talked to whom.

Search the Internet and it is very difficult to find negative reaction to the demonstration.

This article with a video in the Scotsman is entitled Video: Battery Trains On Track To Cut Emissions and gives a lot of information.

  • Each car weighs thirty tonnes.
  • Chassis and body are aluminium.
  • Each car has two 100 kWh batteries underneath.
  • New batteries in 2019 will enable sixty mph for forty miles and take just four minutes to charge.
  • Regenerative brakes recharge the batteries.

The article has a very positive, typified by this paragraph.

Beyond the recycled exterior, Adrian explains how renewable energy and eco-friendliness are at the heart of the train’s design and a sign of things to come.

I haven’t read any reports from bloggers, enthusiasts or the general public about the train, but like myself, I suspect many went home quietly satisfied after watching a very professional demonstration.

My only negative comment about the Vivarail demonstration, is that it could probably have done with a modicum of classic marketing and upsexing.

Alstom’s Coradia iLint

Last week was the second time, that I tried to get a ride on this train.

But as with my first trip, although I saw a train, none were actually running.

This time, I heard that there was a shortage of drivers and one train had gone back to the manufacturer.

These innovative trains are going to attract visitors from all over the world and I think that Alstom are not being at all professional with their handling of the testing.

There was just no information, let alone staff at any of the stations, that will be served by the hydrogen-powered trains.

The important people were happy enough to turn up for the grand launch, but did not see fit to provide the information for the general public, who are interested in a genuine innovation, that could cut carbon emissions.

Conclusion

We will see a diesel-powered Class 230 train in service this December and it will then be possible to judge this innovative train on a fair basis.

But after the professional demonstration I saw in Scotland, I very much feel that this launch will not be handled in a sloppy way, such that it leaves a lot of disillusioned travellers.

But I am beginning to wonder, if Alstom’s  project was launched too early without real planning to gain lots of brownie points about green issues.

It is one thing to get a new train working on a test track, but passengers with their own needs and appointments to keep, add a whole new dimension.

Alstom may well not be alone, as Porterbrook seem to be having troubles with launching their innovative Class 769 train.

October 15, 2018 Posted by | Travel | , , , | 4 Comments

The Silent Transport Revolution

Today, I rode in two battery-powered modes of transport.

Returning from Kings Cross, I was a passenger in one of London’s new black cabs; the LEVC TX.

Earlier in the day, I’d ridden in a battery-powered version of the Class 230 train.

Both vehicles are quieter than diesel-powered versions, as is to be expected.

But what surprised me about the Class 230 train today, is that you can have a normal conversation in the train without raising your voice. The D78 trains from which the Class 230 train has been developed, weren’t that quiet.

The Class 379 BEMU, that I rode in three years ago, was also quiet.

I came back from Scotland in a Standard Class Mark 4 Coach, which was also quiet, but it is a trailer without motors and probably plenty of sound-proofing.

Does the design of a battery-electric vehicle with regenerative braking reduce the noise and vibration emitted?

The Class 230 train has an electrical system based on DC batteries and AC traction motors. So there must be aone very clever heavy electronics to manage the power. So there is orobably little in the electrical system to make the clatter one typically hears on a train. The train obviously has a mechanical brake for emergencies and to bring the train to a funal halt, but that was not used in anger on our short trip.

October 10, 2018 Posted by | Travel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Battery Class 230 Train Demonstration At Bo’ness And Kinneil Railway

I went to Vivarail‘s demonstration of battery version of the Class 230 train, which was given at the Bo’ness and Kinneil Railway.

For some pictures of the original D78 Stock see Raw Material For A New Train.

So what did I think of the train?

Build Quality

From what I saw, the build quality was certainly better than that of a Pacer, which these trains could replace on some routes.

Doors

The single-leaf doors are unusual, as most London Underground stock, only has these at the ends of the cars.

But they worked successfully for nearly forty years of heavy service on the District Line, so they are probably up to the lesser rigours of service outside the Capital.

London Underground Legacy

I talked with one of the Vivarail engineers and he said, that the trains had been retired with a lot of new parts and he pointed out the quality f the floors, some of which go back decades.

It certainly seemed, that the trains could be described as having One Careful Owner.

Noise Levels

Noise levels were low, but then they were in the Class 379 BEMU, that I rode in January 2015.

Intriguingly, both trains have the same batteries, but that has nothing to do with it.

Ride

The quality of the ride was good and very much up to the standard of the S Stock that replaced the D78 Stock on the District Line.

Seats

As the pictures show, the seats of the Class 230 train are based on those of those in the D78 Stock.

The seats in the new train weren’t hard and seemed to my memory to be about the same standard as those in the older train.

So perhaps they were!

Vivarail are offering the train with different interiors, so I suspect those that pay, will get what they want.

Toilets

This train was not fitted with a toilet, but Vivarail will be fitting them to some trains.

USB Ports

There is a USB port between the seats and I was able to charge my phone, as one picture shows.

Conclusion

I think it is true to say, that this battery Class 230 train was a good start.

With more new components like seats, tables and toilets they could be impressive.

October 10, 2018 Posted by | Travel | , , | 1 Comment

Will Class 230 Trains Run On The Island Line?

In the October 2018 Edition of Modern Railways, there is an article which is entitled Vivaral Delivers First Class 230.

In addition to discussing the deployment on the Marston Vale Line, the article has various sub-sections describing future plans for the Class 230 trains.

One such sub-section is entitled Isle of White Next?.

This is the first paragraph.

Introduction of Class 230s on the Island Line between Ryde and Shanklin is South Western Railway operator FirstGroup’s preferred solution for the line.

Other points from the sub-section include.

Vivarail are also reported to have found a way to fit their larger trains in the Ryde Tunnel.

The picture from Wikipedia, shows a Class 483 train approaching Ryde Tunnel.

The height and width of the two trains in London Underground service are as follows.

  • Class 483 – Width 2.60 metres – Height 2.88 metres
  • Class 230 – Width 2.85 metres – Height 3.62 metres

According to the article 45 mm. of packing will be removed.

But it still could be a very tight fit.

Will The Class 230 Trains Feature Battery Operation?

A year ago in Diesel And Battery Trains Could Be The Solution For Island Line, I reported on a report in the Island Echo.

I discussed battery operation extensively and there are several benefits.

  • Energy saving through regenerative braking.
  • Health and safety
  • Lower maintenance cost.
  • Emergency train recovery.
  • The addition of a passing loop at Brading station to improve the timetable.

The line could also be extended to Ventnor station as a single-track without electrification.

Conclusion

It looks to me, that Class 230 trains offer more than just a newer train with wi-fi and power sockets.

One thing puzzles me!

If Vivarail can modify London Underground D78 Stock to work on the Island Line, why wasn’t this option considered before?

 

September 29, 2018 Posted by | Travel | , , | 4 Comments

Class 165 Trains To Go Hybrid

There must be something in the DNA of British Rail’s rolling stock.

Mark 3-based trains like the InterCity 125, Class 319 and Class 321 trains seem to have had collectively more lives than a city full of feral cats.

It is also understandable, that MTU are looking at upgrading modern rolling stock built with their engines to be more efficient and environmentally-friendly. They have launched the MTU Hybrid PowerPack, which adds up to four 30 kWh batteries, electric drive and regenerative braking to a typical diesel multiple unit built in the last twenty years.

So now, upgrading the traction systems of the Class 165 trains is being undertaken.

The Wikipedia entry for Class 165 trains, says this under Future Development.

It was reported in September 2018 that Angel Trains were to convert class 165 units for Chiltern Railways to hybrid diesel and battery-powered trains, and that the first Class 165 HyDrive train should be ready by late 2019.

There is more in this article on Rotherham Business, which is entitled Magtec Changes Track To Convert Diesel Trains.

This is said.

Magtec, the UK’s largest supplier of electric vehicle drive systems, is working to deliver the rail industry’s first conversion of a diesel-powered train to hybrid drive.

Founded in 1992, MAGTEC designs and manufactures electric drive systems and components for a wide range of applications including trucks, buses and military vehicles.

This is also said about the modified trains performance.

In future, passengers using the Class 165 HyDrive could benefit from potentially reduced journey times, thanks to the improved acceleration offered by the hybrid technology compared to its diesel-only counterparts. Additionally, when the hybrid system detects proximity to stations or depots, it will turn the engines off and run on its battery, removing gaseous and noise emissions from populated areas.

That sounds very good to me.

There is also a serious article in the Financial Times, which is entitled Hybrid Battery Trains Set To Shorten Commuter Journey Times.

The headline sounds like hype, but then it is the FT, who usually tell it as it is. Read the article and there is a lot of philosophy and reasons behind this avalanche of retrofitting old trains with new innovative traction systems, in Germany, France and the UK.

It should be remembered that Chiltern have a record of doing the right things.

Further Development

MAGTEC look to be a very innovative company.

The Class 465 train is a third-rail electric train, that is closely-related to the Class 165 train.

It should be noted that sixteen miles of the London to Aylesbury Line is electrified using London Underground’s fourth-rail system.

So could we see the creator’s of the Class 165 HyDrive train, raid the Class 465 train’s parts bin, so the trains can use London Underground’s electrification?

Conclusion

If the project produces a successful outcome, there are seventy-five Class 165 trains running on Chiltern and Great Western Railway, which all seem to be in good condition.

 

September 21, 2018 Posted by | Travel | , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Class 171 Trains And MTU Hybrid PowerPacks

The Class 170 trains and the Class 171 trains are identical, except that they use different coupling systems.

So as MTU Hybrid PowerPacks are being fitted to Class 170 trains, it would seem to be almost certain, that they could be fitted to the other closely-related class.

Southern runs the Class 171 trains on two routes, that are partially-electrified.

  • Ashford to Brighton via Hastings and Eastbourne – 25 miles without electrification
  • London Bridge to Uckfield via Oxted – 23 miles without electrification.

It seems to be environmentally-unfriendly to not run a hybrid train on these routes.

Could A Class 171 Train With An MTU Hybrid PowerPack Run On Third-Rail Lines?

It would appear that the Class 170 and 171 trains, use the same or similar bogies as the Class 377 trains.

These pictures show the bogies on a Class 377 train.

And these are pictures of the bogies on a Class 171 train.

Note.

  1. The pictures were taken at London Bridge station.
  2. The two bogies appear to be of a similar design, although they are for trains with different traction systems.
  3. The bogies in the Class 171 train seem to fit close to the third-rail.
  4. On the Class 377 train, the two end bogies have shoes.

As the Class 377 trains can be and nearly always are fitted with third-rail shoes, would it be possible to fit third-rail shoes to Class 171 trains, at the same time as the transmission is changed from hydraulic to electric, when the MTU Hybrid PowerPacks are installed?

If it is possible to install third-rail shoes, then this power could be used to charge the battery or power the train.

Searching the Internet, I have found this blurb for the MTU Hybrid PowerPack.

This is said

Naturally, rail vehicles with hybrid drive can also be powered exclusively by the diesel engine. This also means great flexibility for the operator: The trains can be deployed on both electrified
and non-electrified rail routes. 

In addition, upgrading to a trimodal power system – with an additional pantograph – is easy because the system is already equipped with an electric motor. This gives the operator considerable freedom with regard to deployment of the vehicles – it‘s a big plus when they can respond flexibly in the future to every route requirement or tender invitation.

A pantograph wouldn’t be much use in Southern territory, but the ability to connect to third-rail power certainly would be.

When clever electronics and a well-programmed control system are added, it should be possible to create an environmentally-friendly train, that could use third-rail, diesel or battery power as required.

Range On Battery Power

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 my proposed electric/diesel/battery hybrid train travel.

It would have a battery capacity of 61.2 kWh, if it had two one-battery MTU Hybrid PowerPack

Assume that the batteries are fully charged at Oxted, Asford and Ore, where they leave the existing electrification.

This would give the following ranges.

  • 3 kWh per vehicle mile – 10 miles
  • 4 kWh per vehicle mile – 7.5 miles
  • 5 kWh per vehicle mile – 6 miles

Note.

  1. ,If the MTU Hybrid PowerPacks had two batteries range would be doubled.
  2. Both the unelectrified routes have sections in open countryside, where diesel power could be used without too much disturbance.
  3. The diesel engines could be used to top up the batteries at Uckfield.

Looking at the two routes, there would be a big cut in the running of trains on diesel.

Diesel Savings Between London Bridge And Uckfield

The distance between London Bridge and Uckfield stations is 46.1 miles, of which 23 miles are not electrified.

Going South, I would suspect because of the regenerative braking and the full batteries at Oxted, that perhaps ten miles of diesel running would be needed.

Going North, because the batteries wouldn’t be full, I suspect about fifteen miles of diesel-running would be needed.

Currently in a round trip, the trains run for 92.2 miles on diesel, but with MTU Hybrid PowerPacks and a third-rail capability, this could be reduced to around twenty-five miles, with no running in stations.

This would be a seventy-three percent reduction in diesel running.

Diesel Savings Between Ashford And Eastbourne

The distance between Ashford and Eastbourne stations is 43 miles, of which 25 miles are not electrified.

On the section without electrification, I suspect that perhaps ten miles of diesel running would be needed.

Currently in a round trip, the trains run for 86 miles on diesel, but with MTU Hybrid PowerPacks and a third-rail capability, this could be reduced to around thirty miles, with no running in stations.

This would be a sixty-five percent reduction in diesel running.

Conclusion

The rail industry has only just started to look at the application of MTU Hybrid PowerPacks.

I’m pretty certain, that they’ll be used in some surprising applications.

 

September 21, 2018 Posted by | Travel | , , | 4 Comments

Looking At The Mathematics Of A Class 170 Train With An MTU Hybrid PowerPack

From various sources like the Wikipedia entry for the Class 170 train and various datasheets and other Internet sources, I will try to get the feel of Class 170 train, that has been fitted with two MTU Hybrid PowerPacks.

Assumptions And Source Data

For the purpose of this post, I shall make the following assumptions about the Class 170 train.

  • The train has two cars, each with their own engine.
  • The train has a capacity of 150 passengers.
  • The train weighs 90.41 tonnes.
  • The train has an operating speed of 100 mph.

After conversion each car will have MTU Hybrid PowerPack with a 6H 1800 engine.

The data sheet for the MTU Hybrid PowerPack with a 6H 1800 engine, indicates the following.

  • Up to four 30.6 kWh batteries can be added to each module.
  • Each battery weighs 350 Kg.
  • Various sizes of diesel engine can be specified.
  • The smallest is a 315kW unit, which is the same size as in a current Class 170 train.

If I assume that the two diesel engines weigh about the same, then any increase in train weight will be down to the batteries, the mounting, the traction motor and the control systems.

But the hydraulic system will be removed.

Calculation Of The Maximum Kinetic Energy

I will now calculate the maximum kinetic energy of a fully-loaded train, that is travelling at maximum speed.

  1. Assuming the average weight of each passenger is 90 Kg with baggage, bikes and buggies, the weight nof a full train becomes 103.91 tonnes
  2. The train is travelling at 100 mph.
  3. Using the Omni Kinetic Energy Calculator gives a kinetic energy of 28.84 kWh.

So even if only one battery is fitted to each engine, there will be 61.2 kWh of energy storage per train, which will probably be more than enough to handle the regenerative braking.

The hybrid PowerPack will probably add some extra weight to the train.

Even if I up the total train weight to 120 tonnes, the kinetic energy is still only 33.33 kWh.

So half this amount of energy can easily be stored in a 30.6 kWh battery in each car.

I would be very surprised, if this train needed a larger engine than the smallest 315 kW unit and more than one battery module in each car.

Does The MTU Hybrid PowerPack Work As A Series Hybrid?

In a series hybrid, the operation is as follows.

  • The diesel generator charges the battery.
  • The battery drives the train using the traction motor.
  • During braking, the electricity generated by the traction motor is returned to the battery.
  • If the battery is full, the regenerative braking energy is passed through resistors on the train roof to heat the sky.

There will also be a well-programmed computer to manage the train’s energy in the most efficient manner.

For a full explatation and how to increase the efficiency read the section on series hybrid, in Wikipedia.

I’m fairly certain that the MTU Hybrid PowerPack works as a series hybrid.

Will The Train Performance Be Increased?

I suspect the following improvements will be achieved.

  • Acceleration will be higher, as it seems to be in all battery road vehicles.
  • Braking will be smother and the rate of deceleration will probably be higher.
  • Station dwell times will be shorter.
  • Noise levels will be reduced.

This video explains the thinking.behind the MTU Hybrid PowerPack.

These trains will be liked by passengers, train operators and rail staff, especially if they enable faster services.

Will The MTU Hybrid PowerPacks Be Difficult To Install?

MTU built the original engines in the Class 170 trains and their must be well over two hundred installations in this class of train alone.

So in designing the PowerPack, it would be a very poor team of engineers, who didn’t design the PowerPack as almost a direct replacement for the existing engine,.

Fitting the new PowerPacks then becomes a question for the accountants, rather than the engineers.

As both a UK and a German project have been announced in the last few days, it looks likely that MTU have come up with a one PowerPack fits all their old engine installations solution.

Conclusion

This project could be a really successful one for MTU and their owner; Rolls-Royce.

 

September 20, 2018 Posted by | Travel | , , , , | Leave a comment