Could A Class 450 Battery/FLEX Train Be Used Between Waterloo And Exeter?
When I wrote Porterbrook Makes Case For Battery/Electric Bi-Mode Conversion, Issue 864 of Rail Magazine hadn’t been published. The magazine contained details of Vivarail’s proposed rapid charging facility, which I wrote about in Charging A Battery-Powered Class 230 Train.
Consequently, at the time, I came to the conclusion that a Class 450 train with a Battery/FLEX conversion, similar to Porterbrook’s one for a Class 350 train, couldn’t stretch between Waterloo and Exeter, as it was just too far.
But Vivarail’s proposed rapid charging facility could change everything!
The West of England Main Line is electrified as far as Basingstoke station, from where the route is worked excursively by diesel Class 159 trains.
Between Basingstoke and Exeter St. Davids stations, the trains make fourteen stops.
- Most station stops,take up to a minute, but could take longer if say the train is busy or there’s a passenger in a wheelchair.
- The train stops at Salisbury for four minutes, possibly to allow loading and unloading of catering trolleys.
- The distances between stations range between a few and eighteen miles.
- In Porterbrook Makes Case For Battery/Electric Bi-Mode Conversion, I said that if a 400 kWh battery were to be fitted to a Class 350/2 train, that this would give a range between twenty and fifty miles.
- The Class 350 and South Western Railway’s Class 450 trains are the same basic Siemens Desiro train, although the Class 350 train uses 25 KVAC overhead electrification and the Class 450 train uses 750 VDC third-rail electrification.
It would appear that if the train could be charged at each station, it should be able to hop all the way between Basingstoke and Exeter St. Davids stations.
Using a traditional charger, where the train would have to be physically plugged into the charger, wouldn’t be possible in the short station stops on the route.
Even raising a pantograph to connect to a 25 KVAC overhead line would be slow and could distract the driver, whilst they were doing more important things.
But Vivarail’s proposed rapid charging facility, which I am sure is automatic would give the battery a top-up without any driver intervention.
The charging system would have a third rail on the opposite side of the track to the platform, as in this picture of Kidbrooke station.
The third-rail would be.
- Short enough to be shielded by a train stopping on top.
- Long enough to connect to at least two contact shoes on the train.
- Automatically earthed, when no train is present and connected.
This would be the sequence, as a train stopped in a station.
- The driver would stop the train at the defined place in the platform, as thousands of train drivers do all over the world, millions of times every day.
- Once stopped, the contact shoes on the train would be in contact with the third rail, as they would be permanently down, as they are when running on third-rail electrification.
- The charging system would detect the stationary train and that the train was connected, and switch on the power supply. to the third-rail.
- Electricity would flow from the track to the batteries, just as if the train was on a standard third-rail electrified track.
- If the battery should become full, the train’s system could stop the charging.
- When passengers had finished leaving and joining the train and it was safe to do so, the driver would start the train and drive it to the next station.
- When the charging system determined that the train was moving or that the contact shoe was no longer connected to the third-rail, it would immediately cut the power to the rail and connect it to earth.
It is a brilliant system; simple, efficient and fail-safe.
- Regenerative braking will mean that stopping in the station will help to top-up the batteries.
- The battery on the train is being charged, as long as it is stationary in the station.
- Delays in the station have no effect on the charging, except to allow it for longer if the battery can accept more charge.
- The driver concentrates on driving the train and doesn’t have to do anything to start and stop the charging.
- The charging system never exposes a live rail to passengers and staff.
The charging system may also help recovery after an incident.
Suppose a fallen tree or a herd of cows has blocked the line and the electricity used to power the train’s systems has used a lot of battery power, so that when the train eventually gets to the next station, the battery needs a long charge before continuing.
The driver would just wait in the station, charging the battery, until there is enough energy to safely proceed.
A Look At The Mathematics
I shall now look at the mathematics of a leg between Basingstoke and Andover stations.
I will assume the following.
- The train will leave the electrification at Basingstoke with a full battery, containing 400 kWh of electricity, as it will have been charged on the way from Waterloo.
- The train is running at an operating speed of up to 90 mph between stations where possible, which means it has a kinetic energy of 47.1 kWh.
- For each mile, the train consumes 8 kWh of electricity, to power the trains services and maintain the required speed.
- Regenerative braking is eighty percent efficient.
As Basingstoke to Andover is eighteen miles, this means that energy consumption in the leg and the stop at Andover is as follows.
- 144 kWh is used to power the train and maintain speed.
- 9.42 kWh is lost in the braking and acceleration back to operating speed..
So the train will lose about 154 kWh on the eighteen mile leg.
I have built an Excel spreadsheet of the route and it looks that if a minimum of 100 kWh can be transferred to the train’s battery at each stop and the train uses no more than 8 kWh per mile, that it should be possible for the train to go from Basingstoke to Exeter on battery power.
Obviously, there are ways to make this journey more certain.
- Reduce the train’s energy consumption for items like lighting and air-conditioning..
- Improve the efficiency of regenerative braking.
- Improve the charging systems, so more electricity is transferred in the short stops.
- Improve the track, so that it is as smooth as possible with gentle curves.
- Fit a larger battery.
It requires different teams of engineers to optimise their own area, so all contribute to a more energy-efficient system.
Would Battery Power Work If The Line Speed Was Increased to 100 mph?
I have done this calculation assuming an operating speed of 100 mph, rather than the current 90 mph determined in part by the maximum speed of the Class 159 trains and it appears to be still possible.
Could 100 kWh Be Transferred To The Train In The Short Stops?
In Station Dwell Times On The London Overground, I showed that the London Overground regularly has station stops of under thirty seconds.
Even to me, as an trained Electrical Engineer, 100 kWh does seem a lot of power to transfer to the train in a stop that is that short.
In the related post, I postulated that a thirty-second dwell time, means that the only way to connect the train to the rapid charging system is to use third-rail electrification, as this connects and disconnects automatically.
This was said about Vivarail’s charging system in Issue 864 of Rail Magazine.
The rapid charging concept consists of a shipping container of batteries that are trickle charged from a mains supply. When a Class 230 sits over the short sections of third-rail, electricity can be quickly transferred to the train’s batteries. When the train is away, the power rails are earthed to ensure they pose no risk The concept provides for charging a Class 230 as it pauses at a terminus before making its return journey.
The key is the battery-to-battery transfer of electricity, as batteries have a low impedance and are designed to supply high electrical currents for a short time, as when starting a massive diesel engine in a truck.
This page shows a 12v 250Ah battery available for just over three hundred pounds.
- This battery alone has a capacity of 3 kWh.
- It is 518mm x 273mm x 240mm.
- It weighs 61 Kg.
You’d get a lot of these in a twenty-foot shipping container, which according to Wikipedia has a volume of 33.2 m³.
I estimate that a hundred of these batteries would fit easily into the container with all their control gear and electronics, which would mean a total capacity of 300 kWh.
Running my Excel spreadsheet with a 200 kWh transfer at each station, shows that the train can leave many stations with a full battery.
I have also run a more difficult scenario.
- For each mile, the train consumes 10 kWh of electricity instead of 8 kWh, to power the trains services and maintain the required speed.
- The rapid charging system can only transfer 80 kWh in thirty seconds.
The train still appears to get to its destination.
Obviously, Porterbrook, Siemens and Vivarail have better data than I have and will know what the actual performance of their trains and systems are.
How Much Power Can The Third-Rail Handle?
It should also be noted that a Class 450 train has eight x 250 kW traction motors, so the third-rail system of the train, must be capable of handling all of these at full power, when running on lines with third-rail electrification.
Would One Charging System Handle Both Tracks?
The route is double-track, with often platforms on either side of the tracs.
This Google Map shows Gillingham station, which appears to have a typical layout.
Note the three-car Class 159 train in the station.
If both tracks were to have a charging rail, I can’t see why one set of batteries shouldn’t be able to feed both tracks with separate control systems.
Although it does appear that several stations often use the same platforms for both directions.
Conclusion
This could be a very affordable way of electrifying a line with a lot of stations.
Flirt Akku Battery Multiple-Unit Unveiled
The title of this post is the same as that of this article in Railway Gazette International.
This is the first paragraph.
Stadler has officially unveiled the prototype Flirt Akku, a version of its Flirt family of electric multiple-units which is equipped with a battery to permit operation on non-electrified or partly-electrified routes.
So it looks like another train with batteries, that joins the following, that have been announced in recent months.
- Angel Trains’ Class 165 Hydrive, that I wrote about in Class 165 Trains To Go Hybrid.
- Bombardier Talent 3, that I wrote about in Bombardier Introduces Talent 3 Battery-Operated Train.
- Class 230 train, that I wrote about in Battery Class 230 Train Demonstration At Bo’ness And Kinneil Railway.
- Porterbrook Class 350/2 Battery/FLEX, that I wrote about in Porterbrook Makes Case For Battery/Electric Bi-Mode Conversion.
There are also several projects using MTU Hybrid Power Packs.
What new projects will emerge in the next couple of years?
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.
.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- South Western Railway is required to produce a proposal for the Island Line as part of the franchise.
- The current Class 483 trains are the oldest on the UK network.
- A decision is expected before the end of the year.
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?
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.
What Are Greater Anglia Going To Do With A Problem Like The Crouch Valley Line?
This post is effectively a series of sub-posts describing the problems of the Crouch Valley Line.
Platform 1 At Wickford Station
These pictures show Platform 1 at Wickford station, where services on the Crouch Valley Line terminate.
The train in the platform is a four-car Class 321 train, which is almost exactly eighty metres long.
After Greater Anglia has renewed the fleet, the shortest electric train they will have will be a five-car Class 720 train, which is over one hundred and twenty metres long.
I don’t think one of these shiny new trains will fit into the current platform.
Electrification
These pictures show the electrification at Burnham-on-Crouch station.
And these show Southminster station.
The overhead electrification on the Shenfield to Southend Line is being renewed and this section is supposedly finished. But it does look very similar to pictures I took in 2016, that are posted in Wickford Station. As the 25 KVAC overhead electrification was installed in 1979, when the line was converted from 6.25 KVAC, I do wonder about the age of some of the gantries.
On the trip, where I took these pictures staff were still complaining about the unreliability of the wires, as they have done before.
There doesn’t appear to have been any work done on the Crouch Valley Line, although the conductor did say that the route was being closed at times for work in the near future.
I do question, whether the overhead wires on the Crouch Valley Line are of a sufficient high and modern standard to be both reliable and easy and affordable to maintain.
Can the electrification handle regenerative braking?
The Timetable
The timetable East of Shenfield is as follows.
- Three trains per hour (tph) between Liverpool Street and Southend Victoria stations.
- A train every forty minutes between Wickford and Southminster stations.
- There are also some direct services between Southminster and Liverpool Street in the Peak.
Every time, I go use the line it seems, I always have a long wait at Wickford station.
Current services take thirty minutes between the two end stations with generous turnround times of about ten minutes at each end of the route.
Two trains are needed for the service, which are single-manned with a conductor checking and selling tickets appearing to float between the trains.
A New Nuclear Power Station At Bradwell
There is a possibility of building.of a new nuclear power station at Bradwell.
This Google Map shows the area.
Note.
- Burnham-on-Crouch is the large village on the North Bank of the River Crouch.
- Southminster is a couple of miles to the North of Burnham on Crouch.
- Bradwell is in the North-East corner of the map alongside the River Blackwater.
- You can just see the World War 2 airfield, which was the site of the original Bradwell nuclear power station.
If a new power station is built at Bradwell, I doubt that it will require rail freight access at Southminster, as did the original station.
Transport technology has moved on and heavy goods will surely be taken in and out by barge from the River Blackwater.
But a new station or more likely ; a cluster of small modular reactors will require transport for staff, contractors and visitors.
Although, on balance, with the growth of renewable energy, I don’t think that many more nuclear power stations will be built.
A Battery Storage Power Station At Bradwell
I also wouldn’t rule out the use of Bradwell for a battery storage power station for the electricity generated by wind farms like Gunfleet in the Northern section of the Thames Estuary.
The number and size of these wind farms will certainly increase in the coming years.
Battery storage power stations are ideal partners for wind farms, as they help turn the intermittent wind power into a constant flow of electricity.
Currently, the largest battery storage power station is a 300 MWh facility that was built in 2016, at Buzen in Japan.
Energy storage technology is moving on fast and I would not be surprised to see 2000 MWh units by the mid-2020s.
Bradwell could be an ideal place to put a battery storage power station.
Passenger Numbers
Passenger numbers on the line over the last few years seem to have been fairly level although there appears to have been a drop in the last year or so. But this drop has happened in lots of places!
Various factors will effect the passenger numbers on the Crouch Valley Line in the future.
- New housing along the route.
- A large energy-based development at Bradwell will atract passengers.
- New trains will attract passengers.
- Will the Internet and new working practices affect passenger numbers?
- A two tph clock-face service will attract passengers.
- Faster and more frequent services between Liverpool Street and Wickford will make the line easier to access.
There is also the possibility of more visitors and tourists to the area. The RSPB have spent a lot of money developing Wallasea Wetlands, which is opposite Burnham-on-Crouch.
In future years, how many people will reach Wallasea, by ferry from Burnham-on-Crouch?
Adding up all these factors, I come to two conclusions.
Predicting the number of passengers will be difficult..
There will always be passengers who need this rail service.
It looks to me that Greater Anglia will have to plan for all eventualities from very low numbers of passengers to a substantial increase.
New Trains
Shenfield-Southend services and those on the Crouch Valley Line will be run using new Class 720 trains.
Bettween Liverpool Street And Southend Victoria
Currently, this service on the route is as follows.
Trains have a frequency of three tph.
- Each train takes an hour for the journey.
- All trains stop at the seven stations between Shenfield and Southend Victotria, Shenfield and Stratford.
- One train in three has an extra stop at Romford.
The new trains have a faster acceleration of 1 metre per second², as opposed to the current trains which can only manage 0.55 metre per second².
This property and their modern design, probably means that the new trains, can do a complete round trip between Liverpool Street and Southend Victoria stations in under two hours.
- The journey time between the two stations will be around fifty minutes.
- A three tph frequency will need a fleet of six trains.
- A four tph frequency will need a fleet of eight trains.
This service will be faster than the fastest services between Fenchurch Street and Southend Central stations.
I can certainly see a time, when the frequency between Liverpool Street and Southend Victoria stations is increased to four tph.
Passenger numbers are rising strongly at Southend Victoria station.
Southend Airport have big expansion plans and would welcome a better rail service, to and from their very convenient station.
At present times to their London termini from various airports are as follows.
- Gatwick Airport – 31 minutes (Express)
- Luton Airport – 28 minutes
- Southend Airport – 53 minutes
- Stansted Airport – 46 minutes
I think that Southend Airport times with the new trains could be about 43 minutes or less, which because of the closeness of the station to the terminal building could allow Southend Airport to claim faster times to Liverpool Street than Stansted Airport.
If the service does go to four tph, there will be a massive increase in capacity.
There will be 1145 seats in the new trains, as opposed to 927 in the current Class 321 trains.
With four tph. this would mean an increase in capacity of 40%.
I don’t think anybody in Southend will be complaining.
Between Wickford And Southminster
As I said earlier, the new longer Class 720 trains will have difficulty running the current service, as they don’t fit into Platform 1 at Wickford station.
Working the same timetable the new trains with their 544 seats will offer a 76% increase in train capacity.
Trains take thirty minutes with five intermediate stations.
Given the better acceleration and modern nature of the new trains, I wonder, if they will be able to do a round trip in an hour.
If they can do this, then it would be possible to run a two tph service on the route.
But it will be a tough ask!
That still leaves the problem of turning back the trains at Wickford.
Currently, trains between Liverpool Street and Southend Victoria going in opposite directions, pass at Wickford station.
If this could be arranged with four tph, then there would be up to fifteen minute windows, where no train was passing through Wickford station.
Suppose the Liverpool Street and Southend services passes through at XX:00, XX:15. XX:30 and XX:45.
Would it be possible for the Southminster trains to leave Wickford at XX:10 and XX:40 and arrive back at XX:05 and XX:35, thus giving five minutes for the driver to get to the other end.
As I said, it would be a tough ask!
But I suspect there is a plan to get two tph between Wickford and Southminster.
- The track could be improved.
- Some level crossings could be closed.
- Operating speed could be faster.
- Better step-free access could probably be arranged at the intermediate stations.
- A step-free bridge could be built at Wickford.
If two tph can be achieved, then this would increase capacity on the route by 134 %.
The Passing Loop At North Fambridge Station
This Google Map shows the station and passing loop at North Fambridge station.
Measuring from the map, I estimate the following.
- The length of the platforms are 160 metres.
- The length of the passing loop is in around 400 metres.
I also suspect that to save money was the line was singled in the 1960s, British Rail made the passing loop as short as possible to cut costs.
The current loop can handle eight-car Class 321 trains, so it can certainly handle a five-car Class 720 trains.
I do wonder if the passing loop were to be lengthened, this would ease operation on the line.
There might even be a length, that enable a two tph service with the current four-car Class 321 trains.
Thoughts On Speed Limits
The speed limit on the line is 60 mph between Battlesbridge and North Fambridge stations and 50 mph at both ends of the line.
Summarising sections of the line, their length and speed limits give.
- Wickford and Battlesbridge – 2 miles 38 chains = 4356 yards = 3983 metres – 50 mph
- Battlesbridge and North Fambridge – – 5 miles 67 chains = 10274 yards = 9395 metres – 60 mph
- North Fambridge and Southminster – 8 miles 15 chains = 14410 yards = 13177 metres – 50 mph
This gives totals of 17160 metres with a 50 mph limit and 9395 metres with a 60 mph limit.
- At 50 mph, the train would cover the 17160 metres in 12.8 minutes
- At 60 mph, the train would cover the 17160 metres in 10.7 minutes
- At 75 mph, the train would cover the 17160 metres in 8.5 minutes
Increasing the speed limit to 60 mph would save two minutes.
Network Rail must have all the figures and costs, but this could be a cost-effective way to save a couple of minutes.
But it does seem if the operating speed of the line were to be increased, time saving could be achieved, that would make a two tph timetable a reality.,
Could Electrification Be Removed From The Crouch Valley Line?
If the track is going to be improved with respect to line speed, level crossings and passing loops, then there will have to be changes to the layout of the overhead electrification.
Most of the serious changes that could be carried out, would be to the East of North Fambridge station.
Would it be sensible if the Class 720 trains have a battery capability, to remove the electrification to the East of North Fambridge station?
- 13.2 km. of single-track would have the electrification removed.
- Some of this electrification will need replacing soon.
- Trains could swap between power sources in North Fambridge station.
- The batteries would be charged between Wickford and North Fambridge stations.
- Only 16 miles in each round trip would be on batteries.
Removing some electrification would cut the cost of any works.
Conclusion
I’m sure Greater Anglia have a solution and it’s probably better than my rambling.
Did The Queen Ever Ride In This Train?
These pictures show the British Rail BEMU, which was an experimental two-car battery electric multiple unit, that ran on the Deeside Railway between Aberdeen and Ballater stations, in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
It is now parked at the Royal Deeside Railway awaiting restoration.
As the bodywork is aluminium, it struck me that it wouldn’t be an impossible restoration project.
Someone, I spoke to, said the biggest problem and probably expense were the batteries.
Perhaps, they could use some recycled batteries from electric buses or other vehicles, which some companies are going to use as house storage batteries.
A Memory From A Lady
I travelled to the Royal Deeside Railway on a bus and sat up front on the top deck. Next to me was a lady, who was perhaps in her seventies like me, who remembered using the train several times.
From what she said, it appeared to work reliably for a number of years.
Did Her Majesty Ever Use The Train?
No-one at the Royal Deeside Railway has any proof, that the Queen ever rode in the train.
But they are pretty sure, that the Queen Mother used the train. Apparently, she liked the steady speed as it proceeded through the countryside.
Conclusion
With the current developments in battery transport, I feel that this prototype might well be worth restoring to operation condition.
The Anonymous Widower 