What Will Happen To The Class 379 Trains?
Greater Anglia’s fleet of thirty Class 379 trains are being replaced by by a brand new fleet of Class 745 Stadler FLIRT EMUs which will be fixed 12-car trains on Stansted Express services and Class 720 Bombardier Aventra EMUs on Cambridge services.
These trains have a high specification.
- Four-car trainsets.
- Ability to work as four, eight and twelve-car trains.
- 2+2 seating in Standard Class.
- 2+1 seating in First Class.
- Plenty of luggage space.
- Wi-fi and power sockets.
- Full compliance with all Persons of Reduced Mobility rules.
- 100 mph capability.
- Regenerative braking.
I also suspect the following is true about the trains.
- The ability to run on 750 VDC third rail electrification could be added reasonably easily.
- Lithium-ion batteries to give a limited range, can be fitted.
- The top speed could be upgraded to the 110 mph of the closely-related Class 387 trains.
- The trains have end gangways and could be certified to run through the core route of Thameslink, like the Class 387 trains.
So they would appear to be a very useful train.
So what will happen to the trains?
This is my speculative list of possible uses.
Continued Use By Greater Anglia
In some ways it’s strange that these reasonably new trains are being replaced on Stansted and Cambridge services.
They are being replaced by Stadler Class 745 trains, which like the Class 379 trains are 100 mph trains.
In the next decade or so, the West Anglia Main Line is to be upgraded.
- There will be four tracks at least between Tottenham Hale and Broxbourne stations.
- Cambridge South station and the East West Rail Link will have been completed.
- Line speed will have been improved to at least 100 mph along its full length.
- The High Meads Loop will be developed to allow more trains from the West Anglia Main Line to use Stratford instead of the overcrowded Liverpool Street as a London terminal.
I suspect the number of fast services between London and Cambridge along the West Anglia Main Line will be increased.
So are performance upgrades available for the Class 745 trains, which will deliver these improved services?
If Stadler are late with their delivery of the Class 745 trains, the Class 379 trains will continue to be used on Stansted and Cambridge services.
This is discussed in this article in Rail Magazine, which is entitled Contingency Plans In Place For Greater Anglia’s Main Line Fleet.
But surely, this would only delay their cascade to other operators.
According to Wikipedia, all of the replacement Class 745 trains, are scheduled to enter service in 2019, which should mean that the Class 379 trains should be available for cascade to other operators, sometime in 2020.
St. Pancras to Corby
Under Future in the Wikipedia entry for Corby station, this is said.
It is planned that a half-hourly London St Pancras to Corby service will operate from December 2019 using new Class 387 trains, once the Midland Main Line has been electrified beyond Bedford as part of the Electric Spine project. Network Rail has also announced that it plans to re-double the currently singled Glendon Junction to Corby section as part of this scheme.
In the December 2017 Edition of Modern Railways there is an article, which is entitled Wires To Corby Now in 2020.
This is the first paragraph.
Carillion is to deliver electrification of the Midland Main Line to Corby, but electric services will not start until December 2020, a year later than previously envisaged.
The article also states the following.
- A fourth track is to be installed between Bedford and Kettering.
- Track and wires are to be updated so that new 125 mph bi-mode trains can run between St. Pancras and Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield.
- Improvements to the current electrification South of Bedford.
Everything should be completed, so that the new bi-mode trains could enter service from 2022.
It should be noted that Wikipedia says this about the Future of the East Midlands Trains franchise.
The franchise is due to end in August 2019. The Invitation to Tender is due to be issued in April 2018, which will detail what improvements bidders for the franchise must make. The contract will then be awarded in April 2019.
This could give the following project schedule on the Midland Main Line.
- April 2019 – Award of new East Midlands franchise.
- August 2019 – New East Midlands franchise starts.
- December 2020 – Electric services to Corby start.
- December 2022 – Bi-mode services to Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield start.
These dates would fit well with the retirement of the Class 379 trains by Greater Anglia in 2020.
Current timings between Corby and London are 71 minutes with four stops. I don’t think it would be unreasonable to assume that the improved track and new trains would be designed so that the timings between Corby and London would be reduced to under an hour, with a round trip of two hours.
If this can be achieved, then just four trains of an appropriate length will be needed to meet the required two tph timetable.
- Four-car services would need four trains.
- Eight-car services would need eight trains.
- Twelve-car services would need twelve trains.
It might not be possible to run eight and twelve car services due to platform length restrictions.
If the two hour round trip could be achieved by an existing Class 387 or an uprated Class 379 trains, then either of these trains would be a shoe-in for the route.
Otherwise we’ll be seeing something faster like a Class 801 train.
But if services are to start in 2020, there would be a problem to manufacture the trains in the available time, as the contract will only have been awarded in April 2019.
I think that St. Pancras to Corby is a possibility for Class 379 trains, which may need to be uprated to 110 mph. On the other hand, Class 387 trains wouldn’t need to be uprated.
West Midlands Trains, who have a similar need for their Euston to West Midlands services, have ordered 110 mph Aventras.
- So perhaps the new East Midlands franchise will do the same.
- This would be more likely, if Bombardier come up with the rumoured 125 mph bi-mode Aventra.
- Or they could buy a mixture of Class 800 and 801 trains.
I don’t think the Class 379 trains will work St. Pancras to Corby.
Battery Services
A Class 379 train was used for the BEMU trial, where a battery was fitted to the train and it ran for a couple of months between Manningtree and Harwich, using overhead power one way and battery power to return.
Was this class of train chosen, as it was one of the easiest to fit with a battery? After all it was one of the later Electrostars.
This article on the Railway Gazette from July 2007 is entitled Hybrid Technology Enters The Real World. It describes the experimental conversion of a Class 43 power-car from a High Speed Train into a battery-assisted diesel-electric power-car.
A second article in the Railway Gazette from October 2010 is entitled First New Stansted Express Train Rolls Out. It describes the Class 379 train in detail. This is an extract.
Although part of the Electrostar family, the Class 379 incorporates a number of technical changes from the original design developed in the late 1990s, making use of technologies which would be used on the Aventra next-generation Electrostar which Bombardier is proposing for the major Thameslink fleet renewal contract.
The body structure has been revised to meet European crashworthiness requirements. The window spacing has changed, with the glass bolted rather than glued in place to enable faster repairs. The couplers are from Dellner, and the gangways from Hübner. Top speed is 160 km/h, and the 25 kV 50 Hz trains will use regenerative braking at all times.
The last statement about regenerative braking is the most interesting.
To my knowledge electric trains that use regenerative braking had never run on the West Anglia Main Line before and that to handle the return currents with 25 KVAC needs special and more expensive transformers. The obvious way to handle regenerative braking at all times without using the electrification is to put an appropriately sized battery on the train.
If Bombardier have done this on the Class 379 train, then it might be a lot easier to fit a large battery to power the train. This would explain why the trains were chosen for the trial rather than a train from a more numerous variant.
The result was a trial of which few, if any,negative reports can be found.
The result was a trial of which few, if any,negative reports can be found.
Class 379 Train Performance On Batteries
Little has been said about the performance of the train.
However, in this document on the Network Rail web site, which is entitled Kent Area Route Study, this is said.
In 2015, industry partners worked together to investigate
battery-electric traction and this culminated with a
practical demonstration of the Independently Powered
Electric Multiple Unit IPEMU concept on the Harwich
Branch line in Anglia Route. At the industry launch event,
the train manufacturers explained that battery
technology is being developed to enable trains to run
further, at line speeds, on battery power, indeed, some
tram lines use this technology in the city centres and many
London buses are completely electric powered.The IPEMU project looked at the feasibility of battery power
on the Marshlink service and found that battery was
sufficient for the train to run from Brighton to Ashford
International and back but there was insufficient charge to
return to Ashford International on a second round trip. A
solution to this could be that the unit arrives from Ashford
International at Brighton and forms a service to Seaford and
back before returning to Ashford International with a
charged battery.The IPEMU demonstration train was a Class 379, a similar
type to the Class 377 units currently operated by Southern, it
was found that the best use of the battery power was to
restrict the acceleration rate to that of a modern diesel
multiple unit, such as a Class 171 (the current unit type
operating the line) when in battery mode and normal
acceleration on electrified lines.
|Ashford to Brighton is 62 miles, so a round trip would be 124 miles.
The document doesn’t say anything about how many stops were made in the tests, but I’m sure that Bombardier, Greater Anglia and Network Rail have all the data to convert a Class 379 into a viable IPEMU or Independently Powered Electric Multiple Unit.
As to how long it takes to charge the battery, there is an interesting insight in this article from Rail Magazine, which is entitled Battery-Powered Electrostar Enters Traffic. This is said.
It is fitted with six battery rafts, and uses Lithium Ion Magnesium Phosphate battery technology. The IPEMU can hold a charge for 60 miles and requires two hours of charging for every hour running. The batteries charge from the overhead wires when the pantograph is raised, and from regenerative braking.
The two-one ratio between charging and running could be an interesting factor in choice of routes.
What About The Aventra?
I quoted from this article in the Railway Gazette from October 2010 earlier. This is said.
Although part of the Electrostar family, the Class 379 incorporates a number of technical changes from the original design developed in the late 1990s, making use of technologies which would be used on the Aventra next-generation Electrostar.
So would it be a reasonable assumption to assume, that if batteries can be fitted to a Class 379 train, then they could also be fitted to an Aventra?
This article in Global Rail News from 2011, which is entitled Bombardier’s AVENTRA – A new era in train performance, gives some details of the Aventra’s electrical systems. This is said.
AVENTRA can run on both 25kV AC and 750V DC power – the high-efficiency transformers being another area where a heavier component was chosen because, in the long term, it’s cheaper to run. Pairs of cars will run off a common power bus with a converter on one car powering both. The other car can be fitted with power storage devices such as super-capacitors or Lithium-ion batteries if required.
This was published in 2011, so I suspect Bombardier have refined the concept.
But it does look that both battery variants of both Class 379 trains and Aventras are possible.
Routes For Battery Trains
What important lines could be run by either a Class 379 train or an Aventra with an appropriate battery capability?
I will refer to these trains as IPEMUs in the remainder of this post.
I feel that one condition should apply to all routes run by IPEMUs.
The 2:1 charging time to running time on battery ratio must be satisfied.
East Coastway And Marshlink Lines
As Network Rail are prepared to write the three paragraphs in the Kent Area Route Study, that I quoted earlier, then the East Coastway and Marshlink Lines, which connect Brighton and Ashford International stations, must be high on the list to be run by IPEMUs.
Consider.
- All the route, except for about twenty-four miles of the Marshlink Line is electrified.
- Brighton and Ashford International stations are electrified.
- Some sections have an operating speed of up to 90 mph.
- Brighton to Hastings takes 66 minutes
- Ashford International to Hastings takes 40 minutes
- There is a roughly fifteen minute turnround at the two end stations.
The last three points, when added together, show that in each round trip, the train has access to third-rail power for 162 minutes and runs on batteries for 80 minutes.
Does that mean the 2:1 charging to running ratio is satisfied?
I would also feel that if third-rail were to be installed at Rye station, then in perhaps a two minute stop, some extra charge could be taken on board. The third-rail would only need to be switched on, when a train was connected.
It looks to me, that even the 2015 test train could have run this route, with just shoe gear to use the third-rail electrification. Perhaps it did do a few test runs! Or at least simulated ones!
After all, with a pantograph ready to be raised to rescue a train with a flat battery, they could have run it up and down the test route of the Mayflower Line at a quiet time and see how far the train went with a full battery!
Currently, many of the train services along the South Coast are run by a fleet of Class 313 trains, with the following characteristics.
- There are a total of nineteen trains.
- They were built in the late 1970s.
- They are only three cars, which is inadequate at times.
- They are 75 mph trains.
- They don’t have toilets.
- The trains are used on both the East Coastway and West Coastway Lines.
Replacing the trains with an appropriate number of Class 379 trains or Aventras would most certainly be welcomed by passengers, staff and the train companies.
- Diesel passenger trains could be removed from the route.
- There could be direct services between Ashford International and Southampton via Brighton.
- One type of train would be providing most services along the South Coast.
- There would be a 33% increase in train capacity.
- Services would be a few minutes quicker.
- For Brighton’s home matches, it might be possible to provide eight-car trains.
- The forty-year-old Class 313 trains would be scrapped.
The service could even be extended on the fully-electrified line to Bournemouth to create a South Coast Seaside Special.
London Bridge To Uckfield
I looked at Chris Gibb’s recommendation for this line in Will Innovative Electrification Be Used On The Uckfield Line?
These actions were recommended.
- Electrification of the branch using 25 KVAC overhead.
- Electrification of tunnels with overhead conductor rail.
- Dual-voltage trains.
- Stabling sidings at Crowborough.
How would this be affected if IPEMUs were to be used?
The simplest way to run IPEMUs would be to install third-rail at Uckfield to charge the train.
Current timings on the route are as follows.
- London Bridge to Hurst Green – electrified – 32 minutes
- Hurst Green to Uckfield – non-electrified – 41 minutes
- Turnaround at London Bridge – 16 minutes
- Turnaround at Uckfield – 11 minutes
Hurst Green station is the limit of the current electrification.
Adding these times together, show that in each round trip, the train has access to third-rail power for 91 minutes and needs to on batteries for 82 minutes.
It looks like the 2:1 charging to running ratio is not met.
To meet that, as the round trip is three hours, that means that there probably needs to be two hours on electrification and an hour on batteries.
So this means that at least eleven minutes of the journey between Hurst Green and Uckfield station needs to be electrified, to obtain the 2:1 ratio.
It takes about this time to go between Crowborough and Uckfield stations.
- Crowborough will have the new sidings, which will have to be electrified.
- The spare land for the sidings would appear to be to the South of Crowborough station in an area of builders yards and industrial premises.
- Crowborough Tunnel is on the route and is nearly a kilometre long.
- The route is double-track from Crowborough station through Crowborough Tunnel and perhaps for another kilometre to a viaduct over a valley.
- The viaduct and the remainder of the line to Uckfield is single track.
- The single track section appears to have space to put the gantries for overhead electrification on the bed of the original second track.
If you apply Chris Gibb’s original recommendation of 25 KVAC, then electrification between Crowborough and Uckfield station, might just be enough to allow IPEMUs to work the line.
- The sidings at Crowborough would be electrified.
- About half of the electrification will be single-track.
- Crowborough Tunnel would use overhead rails.
- Power could probably be fed from Crowborough.
- The regenerative braking would be handled by the batteries on the trains.
- Changeover between overhead power and batteries would be in Crowborough station.
- Buxted and Uckfield stations wouldn’t be complicated to electrify, as they are single-platform stations.
I very much feel that running IPEMUs between London Bridge and Uckfield is possible.
Preston to Windermere
The Windermere Branch Line is not electrified and Northern are proposing to use Class 769 bi-mode trains on services to Windermere station.
Current timings on the line are as follows.
- Windermere to Oxenholme Lake District – non-electrified – 20 minutes
- Oxenholme Lake District to Preston – electrified – 40 minutes
If you add in perhaps ten minutes charging during a turnaround at Preston, the timings are just within the 2:1 charging ratio.
So services from Windermere to at least Preston would appear to be possible using an IPEMU.
These trains might be ideal for the Windermere to Manchester Airport service. However, the Class 379 trains are only 100 mph units, which might be too slow for the West Coast Main Line.
The IPEMU’s green credentials would be welcome in the Lakes!
The Harrogate Line
This is said under Services in the Wikipedia entry for Harrogate station, which is served by the Harrogate Line from Leeds.
The Monday to Saturday daytime service is generally a half-hourly to Leeds (southbound) calling at all stations and to Knaresborough (eastbound) on the Harrogate Line with an hourly service onwards to York also calling at all stations en route.
Services double in frequency at peak time to Leeds, resulting in 4 trains per hour (tph) with 1tph running fast to Horsforth. There are 4 tph in the opposite direction between 16:29 and 18:00 from Leeds with one running fast from Horsforth to Harrogate.
Evenings and Sundays an hourly service operates from Leeds through Harrogate towards Knaresborough and York (some early morning trains to Leeds start from here and terminate here from Leeds in the late evening).
Proposals have been made to create a station between Harrogate and Starbeck at Bilton, whilst the new Northern franchise operator Arriva Rail North plans to improve service frequencies towards Leeds to 4 tph from 7am to 7pm once the new franchise agreement starts in April 2016.
I believe that the easiest way to achieve this level of service would be to electrify between Leeds and Harrogate.
- IPEMUs might be able to go between Harrogate and York on battery power.
- Leeds and York are both fully electrified stations.
- If a link was built to Leeds-Bradford Airport, it could be worked on battery power and the link could be built without electrification.
- The electrification could be fed with power from Leeds.
- There is also the two-mile long Bramhope Tunnel.
Full electrification between Leeds and Harrogate would allow Virgin’s Class 801 trains to reach Harrogate.
I’m fairly certain that there’s a scheme in there that with minimal electrification would enable IPEMUsy to reach both a new station at Leeds-Bradford Airport and York.
Conclusion
These routes show that it is possible to use IPEMUs to run services on partially-electrified routes.
As I said earlier, the 2:1 ratio of charging to running time could be important.
Airport Services
Class 379 trains were built to provide fast, comfortable and suitable services between London Liverpool Street and Stansted Airport.
Because of this, the Class 379 trains have a First Class section and lots of space for large bags.
Surely, these trains could be found a use to provide high-class services to an Airport or a station on a high-speed International line.
But there are only a limited number of UK airports served by an electrified railway.
- Ashford International for Eurostar.
- Birmingham
- Gatwick
- Heathrow
- Luton
- Manchester
- Southampton
- Southend
- Stansted
Most of these airports already have well-developed networks of airport services, but Class 379 trains could provide an upgrade in standard.
In addition, the following airports, may be served by an electrified heavy rail railway.
All except Doncaster Sheffield would need new electrification. For that airport, a proposal to divert the East Coast Main Line exists.
Possibilities for airport services using IPEMUs, based on Class 379 trains with a battery capability would include.
Ashford International
The completion of the Ashford Spurs project at Ashford International station will surely create more travellers between Southampton, Portsmouth and Brighton to Ashford, as not every Continental traveller will prefer to go via London.
Class 379 IPEMUs,with a battery capability to handle the Marshlink Line would be ideal for a service along the South Coast, possibly going as far West as Bournemouth.
Birmingham
Birmingham Airport is well connected by rail.
I think that as train companies serving the Airport, have new trains on order, I doubt we’ll see many Class 379 trains serving the Airport.
Bristol
Various routes have been proposed for the Bristol Airport Rail Link.
In my view, the routes, which are short could be served by light rail, tram-train or heavy rail.
As the proposed city terminus at Bristol Temple Meads station would be electrified and the route is not a long one, I’m pretty sure that a Class 379 IPEMU could work the route.
But light rail or tram-train may be a better option.
Gatwick
Gatwick Airport station is well served by trains on the Brighton Main Line, running to and from Brighton, Clapham Junction, East Croydon, London Bridge, St. Pancras and Victoria, to name just a few.
Gatwick also has an hourly service to Reading via the North Downs Line, which is only partly electrified.
In my view, the North Downs route would be a classic one for running using Class 379 IPEMUs.
- The Class 379 trains were built for an Airport service.
- Four cars would be an adequate capacity.
- No infrastructure work would be needed. But operating speed increases would probably be welcomed.
- Third-rail shoes could be easily added.
- Several sections of the route are electrified.
- Gatwick Airport and Reading stations are electrified.
Currently, trains take just over an hour between Reading and Gatwick Airport.
Would the faster Class 379 IPEMUs bring the round trip comfortably under two hours?
If this were possible, it would mean two trains would be needed for the hourly service and four trains for a half-hourly service.
There may be other possibilities for the use of Class 379 trains to and from Gatwick Airport.
- Luton Airport keep agitating for a better service. So would a direct link to Gatwick using Class 379 trains be worthwhile?
- Class 379 IPEMUs could provide a Gatwick to Heathrow service using Thameslink and the Dudding Hill Line.
- Class 379 IPEMUs could provide a Gatwick to Ashford International service for connection to Eurostar.
I also feel that, as the trains are closely-related to the Class 387/2 trains used on Gatwick Express, using the Class 379 trains on Gatwick services would be a good operational move.
Also, if Class 379 IPEMUs were to be used to create a South Coast Express, as I indicated earlier, two sub-fleets would be close together.
Leeds-Bradford
Earlier I said that the Harrogate Line could be a route for IPEMUs, where services could run to York, if the Leeds to Harrogate section was electrified.
A spur without electrification could be built to Leeds-Bradford Airport.
Based on current timings, I estimate that a Bradford Interchange to Leeds-Bradford Airport service via Leeds station would enable a two-hour round trip.
An hourly service would need two trains, with a half-hourly service needing four trains.
Manchester
Manchester Airport is well connected by rail and although the Class 379 trains would be a quality upgrade on the current trains, I think that as Northern and TransPennine have new trains on order, I doubt we’ll see many Class 379 trains serving the Airport.
Conclusion
Looking at these notes, it seems to me that the trains will find a use.
Some things stand out.
- As the trains are only capable of 100 mph, they may not be suitable for doing longer distances on electrified main lines, unless they are uprated to the 110 mph operating speed of the Class 387 trains.
- The main line where they would be most useful would probably be the East and West Coastway Lines along the South Coast.
- Converting some into IPEMUs would probably be useful along the Marshlink and Uckfield Lines, in providing services to Gatwick and in a few other places.
I also feel, that Aventras and other trains could probably be designed specifically for a lot of the routes, where Class 379 trains, with or without batteries, could be used.
Is The Battery Electric Multiple Unit (BEMU) A Big Innovation In Train Design?
By training I am an Electrical Engineer who specialised at Liverpool University and for a few years afterwards in the mathematics of the control of mechanical, electrical and other systems.
Over the last fifty years, I’ve liked to think of myself as scientifically green and in transport, I’ve come to the belief that we need to be as electric as possible, as this can produce a minimum of carbon dioxide and less noxious fumes and noise.
We may have produced a series of battery-electric vehicles for special purposes such as golf buggies, the electric milk floats of my childhood and light taxis and buses for historic city centres.
Electric Taxi In Malta
But where are the queues of stylish electric cars waiting for the charging points in my local car park in Dalston?
In my view, electric road vehicles with one or two rare exceptions, don’t really appeal to drivers, owners and users. You read reports that the economics are suspect without large subsidies. That’s as maybe, but having once owned a golf buggy, I can testify that battery life and performance wasn’t acceptable to the special needs on my farm.
So when Bombardier, Network Rail, Greater Anglia and others announced they were going to test a Class 379 4-carriage train as a battery-electric multiple unit (BEMU), I either thought they had more money than sense or there was something I’d missed.
Riding The BEMU
A desire to investigate found me on a cold morning in February boarding what looked to be a outwardly normal Class 379 train at Manningtree.
An Outwardly Normal Class 379 Train
The only visible difference was the Batteries Included sign on the side. Inside nothing appeared to have been changed
A Very Familiar Interior
Except for the destination display showing we were going the dozen miles to Harwich Town.
As we trundled away and breezed down and back up the Stour Estuary, I could detect no difference between the two runs and between train 379013 and its unmodified siblings, which I use regularly to Cambridge. The conductor assured me that they generally went one way under AC power from the catenary and the other on the batteries.
Returning from Harwich, I travelled with the train’s on-board test engineer, who was monitoring the train performance in battery mode on a laptop. He told me that acceleration in this mode was the same as a standard train, that the range was up to sixty miles and that only minimal instruction was needed to convert a driver familiar to the Class 379 to this battery variant.
It was an impressive demonstration, of how a full-size train could be run in normal service without connection to a power supply. I also suspect that the partners in the project must be very confident about the train and its technology to allow paying passengers to travel on their only test train.
It’s All About The Rolling Resistance
The physics of rolling resistance, explain why I was wrong to be sceptical and had now been so surprised and delighted by the Class 379 BEMU.
Most of us have driven a car with soft tyres and know that you need more power to maintain speed, as soft tyres have a higher rolling resistance.
Generally the rolling resistance of a steel wheel on a steel rail is lower, which helps trains move heavier loads for less power than road vehicles with rubber tyres.
But also if you read about the mathematics of rolling resistance, you will find that if you increase the load on a steel wheel running on a steel rail you lower the rolling resistance, so you can move the train for less power. This helps explain the impressive performance of the BEMU.
You have the paradox, that optimally-located heavy batteries, in a steel-wheel-on-rail vehicle, reduce the rolling resistance and mean it needs less power.
One of the most important rules of life is that you can’t disobey the laws of physics.
A Hybrid Train
In some ways to consider this train a battery electric multiple unit is wrong, as its nearest cousin is probably the hybrid bus, such as the New Routemaster in London. In the bus the battery is charged by a small diesel engine and final drive is all-electric.
In the rest of this article, I will continue to use BEMU, but hybrid electric multiple unit or HEMU might be better. It could be argued that the general public associate hybrid with something good, so there may be sensible public relations reasons for calling the trains HEMUs.
Using a BEMU
One of the main uses of a BEMU would be on a cross-country route that connects two electrified lines. The overcrowded Cambridge to Ipswich route would certainly be possible, as the gap between Haughley Junction and Cambridge is short of thirty miles and well within the capability of a BEMU.
Another use of a BEMU would be to extend an electrified route to an important town that needed a rail link bigger than can be provided by a two-coach diesel train of a certain age. London to Great Yarmouth via Norwich would be a typical route.
Branch lines off an electrified main line, such as the Felixstowe branch would be ideal for a BEMU.
The three East Anglian examples I have given could probably be served without spending a penny on infrastructure.
The Greater Anglia Involvement
Greater Anglia’s involvement in the project is significant as East Anglia has several routes suitable for a BEMU, in addition to those mentioned earlier.
The trains would also give the company the ability to extend some of the Liverpool Street to Cambridge services to perhaps Norwich, Newmarket and Bury St. Edmunds.
Some gaps like Ely to Norwich, might be stretching the range, but the trains could give the soon-to-be-two Cambridge stations much better access to a wider East Anglia from Peterborough and Wisbech in the West, Norwich and Cromer in the North and Yarmouth and Ipswich in the East.
East Anglia seems to suffer more than most from track and overhead wire problems and rebuilding. A BEMU would make a superb blockade buster and could even have been used to get passengers to Peterborough, when all the problems happened on the East Coast Main Line at Christmas, by jumping the gap from Ely.
The rail network in East Anglia also suffers from periodic overcrowding, especially in the summer, so extra carriages on many services would be welcome to Greater Anglia and users alike.
East Anglia for so long a rail backwater would love these trains.
Advantages To Network Rail
Network Rail is an infrastructure company so why is it getting involved in the design of trains?
Network Rail has some problems with electrification due to well-publicised issues and in some cases the large quantity, they are being tasked to install, which puts pressure on manpower and resources.
In some sensitive areas, there may be planning issues with putting up the overhead wires. A simple example in Suffolk illustrates the value of a BEMU. It is unlikely the Gainsborough Line will ever be electrified, as it runs through the Stour Valley and the Nimbys would have a field day if Network Rail decided to put overhead line gantries on the iconic listed Chappel Viaduct, which is the second largest brick structure in England. But as the line is only a dozen miles long, running a BEMU on the line would be a sensible idea.
There are probably a lot of places where using a BEMU, rather than electrifying saves Network Rail a lot of installation costs and lawyers fees. Passengers would get a brand new and probably larger electric train, from the day they can be delivered and after the train crew has been trained.
Electrification of passenger services is a proven revenue generator, but predicting how much electrification will increase traffic, is one of the blackest of black arts. The difficulty is illustrated by the North and East London Lines, which were built to run the three-car trains that were thought to be required for the level of traffic. London Overground is now going through the second train lengthening process to cope, which is also requiring various infrastructure changes. If London can’t get this right with their massive journey databases, how can you predict traffic on a branch line in say Dorset or Norfolk? A shiny modern BEMU could be a valuable tool for assessing the increase in traffic, by trialling one for a period to ascertain what needs to be done to improve a service. The solution could be anything from bringing back the terrible diesel multiple unit, through using a BEMU on the line to full electrification.
I think it is true to say, that Network Rail could probably cut the cost of electrification and line improvements, by better planning of the work.
There are also innumerable lines in the United Kingdom, where the distance is less than sixty or seventy miles and both ends of the line are electrified, which are possibilities for running BEMUs.
- Hurst Green to Lewes via Uckfield and the Marshlink Line in Sussex
- The Tyne Valley Line between Newcastle and Carlisle
- Many lines that link to electrified hubs like Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds.
- Lines in Scotland that link to the current electrification. This could include the new Borders Railway which is only thirty miles long.
- Any branch from an electrified main line.
Unfortunately for everybody concerned, the hundred miles between Salisbury and Exeter is probably just too far to run on batteries at present. But this could be possible in a few years, as the technology develops.
Many routes with minimal partial electrification could accept a BEMU tomorrow, which could be a more affordable alternative to full electrification.
- Full electrification often needs a lot of bridge and tunnel reconstruction to give sufficient clearance to the wires. With a BEMU, this is unnecessary.
- Deployment of BEMUs, could also release much-needed modern diesel trains for use on lines away from electrification.
I would argue it’s better to spend the money on rolling stock, rather than use it to enlarge bridges and tunnels.
The Biggest Advantage To Rail Companies And Users
The biggest advantage of the technology is a truly unusual one, which is akin to putting the cart before the horse.
It’s that the new BEMUs start to run as soon as they are delivered and even before the electrification is complete.
Suppose you are possibly going to electrify a line like Carlisle to Newcastle, where both ends are already wired.
Traditionally, you can’t run any electric trains, until the electrification is complete.
But if you used BEMUs to operate the line, you can actually deliver the trains and bring in the new service pattern before you electrify using the power at both ends to charge the batteries.
After electrification, you might replace the BEMUs with a non-battery sibling and move the BEMUs to another line to repeat the process.
So the passengers benefit earlier from new trains. The train company should also benefit, as hopefully all the publicity of better and possibly longer trains generates extra journeys.
Instead of the speed of the electrification works governing the pace of line modernisation, the limiting factor is how fast trains can be built and any necessary much smaller infrastructure improvements like platform extensions are completed.
A Possible Production BEMU
The partners in this project seem to have come up with some fairly tight performance objectives for the train.
- A sixty plus mile range. This seems to bridge a lot of network electrification gaps and the length of out and return on the average branch line – Achieved
- Performance similar to the standard Class 379 and enough to work the average secondary or branch line – Achieved.
- No change of passenger experience to a standard Class 379 – Achieved
- Identical Driving Characteristics to a standard Class 379 – Achieved
- An overall experience better than a Pacer or a Sprinter – Achieved by a wide margin. I’ve also ridden modern Class 171 and Class 172 diesel multiple units lately and the Class 379 BEMU was certainly better in terms of ambient noise.
Bombardier could just create a Class 379 BEMU, but I suspect that the upcoming Aventra train chosen for Crossrail would be used. After all, why would you use a boring old train, when you could have a sexy new one? Especially one that is lighter and more energy efficient. You could even borrow the use of a small on-board engine to charge the battery from the bus industry.
Probably the most difficult decision in the design is the train length, but why not make them all identical go-anywhere four carriage dual-voltage trains?
Incidentally, that go-anywhere capability will be enhanced when ERTMS becomes standard for all trains.
How Would BEMUs Affect Various Schemes?
The next few sections will look at various proposed schemes and how BEMUs might affect them.
The Felixstowe Branch
I’ve used the Felixstowe branch for over fifty years and the individual train capacity is now smaller than it was in the 1960s. But the frequency has improved and the service has got better since the Bacon Factory Chord was created.
It carries upwards of thirty freight trains each way every day and has long been mooted for electrification. Unless the complete route from
Felixstowe to Nuneaton and inside Felixstowe Port were also electrified, electrification of the branch line is probably a waste of time, as there would need to be a change of locomotive at some point.
I sometimes wonder if you want to have overhead wiring in a port or goods yard, with cranes lifting containers all the time.
I believe that the Class 88 locomotive is a better solution, as this would give electric haulage on electrified lines like the Great Eastern Main Line and diesel haulage on the branch and in the port.
Passengers on the line would like better and larger trains and this could be solved by a BEMU charging every time it returned to the Ipswich end of the branch.
Ipswich To Cambridge And Lowestoft
If you are going to run a BEMU from Ipswich to Felixstowe, then surely it would be a good idea to run the trains on the services from Ipswich to Cambridge and Lowestoft.
The gap between the overhead wires at Cambridge and Haughley Junction is less than thirty miles and would easily be jumped by a BEMU, charging itself at the two ends of the line.
Ipswich to Lowestoft is fifty miles which would certainly be too far for a BEMU going out and back on one filling of electricity at Ipswich. But as I believe a BEMU should be dual voltage, why not put in a shielded length of third-rail away from the platform side of the train in Lowestoft station. This picture shows the platform layout at Lowestoft with the current Norwich and Ipswich Class 156 trains in the platforms.
Surely, Network Rail’s engineers can come up with a third-rail system in the station for charging BEMUs, that meets the most draconian Health and Safety regulations.
If BEMUs were to also run the Norwich to Lowestoft services, then you’d have electrified the passenger services to the United Kingdom’s most easterly town.
What would a picture of two Aventra BEMU profiles in Lowestoft station, do for the town?
Completing The East Anglian Electrification Of Passenger Services
If some means of range extending like a third-rail-based charger in some terminal stations, then there is no reason that all unelectrified lines in East Anglia could be run successfully by BEMUs. These would include.
- Cambridge and Ely to Norwich on the Breckland Line
- Norwich to Yarmouth on the Wherry Lines
- Norwich to Cromer and Sheringham on the Bittern Line
- Marks Tey to Sudbury on the Gainsborough Line
The BEMUs would also be an ideal train for the proposed re-opening of Bramley Line between Wisbech and March and the possible creation of the Norfolk Orbital Railway from Sheringham to Wymondham.
Completing The Electrification In East Sussex
East Sussex Council has produced a document called Shaping Rail In East Sussex, and also proposes the electrification of the Marshlink Line and improving and fully electrifying the Wealden Line and Oxted Line.
I believe that BEMUs could be the key to completing the electrification of this important commuter area and releasing sixteen Class 171 diesel multiple units for areas with no electrification at all.
As BEMUs would effectively be a one-for-one replacement for the Class 171 and no infrastructure work would be needed except for the track work at Lewes, as the new trains were delivered, a Class 171 could be released to go and replace a Pacer or Sprinter.
The Borders Railway
I suspect that various Scots and their politicians will be a bit miffed, that a beautiful new railway will be running second-hand trains. I suspect that something like Class 171 or Class 172 will be used, but wouldn’t it be nice if four-coach electric trains were to be used on the route.
As the route is not being electrified, but power is available at the Edinburgh end and the line is only sixty miles out and back, the line would be an ideal candidate for equipping with sexy new BEMUs.
The only problem is that the Scots have just signed a deal with Hitachi to deliver a whole stable of new AT200 electric trains.
However, it should be noted that Abellio Greater Anglia is one of the partners in the testing of the experimental Class 379 BEMU and that Abellio ScotRail is the new Scottish franchise holder.
Incidentally, Abellio’s parent; Nederlandse Spoorwegen still have sa few diesel multiple units, so perhaps they have other motives in being involved with the BEMU.
Glasgow Crossrail And The Airport Rail Link
Glasgow Crossrail is a proposal to improve rail services in Glasgow described like this in Wikipedia.
The proposed Crossrail initiative involves electrifying and reopening the City Union Line for regular passenger use in conjunction with new filler sections of track which will connect the North Clyde, Ayrshire, and Kilmarnock and East Kilbride suburban routes together, therefore allowing through running of services through the centre of Glasgow in a North-South axis.
It has been an on-and-off project over the years, as has the closely-related Glasgow Airport Rail Link.
Perhaps by selectively using BEMUs on the City Union Line, some of the major problems of rail transport in Scotland’s largest city can be alleviated, until the budget allows full electrification across the city.
Replacing Pacers Out Of Electrified Hubs
I asked in the title of this post if a new battery electric multiple unit (BEMU) could be a replacement for the truly-dreadful Pacers.
On some routes out of Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and other electrified hubs, Pacers perform out and back services, which could probably be replaced by a BEMU.
As electrification progresses more and more, Pacers will find that they operate more of their routes partially under the wires. All of these routes will become candidates for BEMUs.
As the new trains will elsewhere displace some modern diesel multiple units, these could also probably chase a few Pacers to the scrapyard.
So in my view, new BEMUs may not always directly replace the Pacers, but they will certainly hasten their demise.
Should The Gospel Oak To Barking Line Be Electrified?
I know that freight is an important driver of electrification of the Gospel Oak to Barking Line, but how would the availability of a number of BEMUs affect how the work will proceed?
The Gospel Oak to Barking Line is being electrified at a cost of £115million. In addition eight new four carriage trains are being ordered for the line.
Electrification of the line is said to be difficult, as there are numerous bridges and viaducts.
But the line is also desperately short of capacity for passengers and desperately needs the new electric trains.
As the line is partly electrified, why not drop the full electrification for a few years and buy eight new BEMUs?
They would pick up power east of Woodgrange Park station and around South Tottenham, leaving only about twenty miles to run on the batteries.
If the batteries need a top up at Gospel Oak, why not put in a short length of overhead wire at the western end of the line. Or heresy of heresies, a short length of third rail!
As circumstances and funds allowed the rest of the line would be electrified.
All of the flexibility in the schedule would be down to the unique characteristics of the BEMU.
Some residents along the line might be annoyed by the continuing noise and smell of the diesel freight locomotives passing through if the line remains without full electrification, but passengers will get twice as many carriages as at present, in brand new electric trains. Passengers won’t care that they’re powered by batteries, so long as they are reliable, comfortable and punctual
Conclusion
Who’d have thought that such a rather unusual concept of a battery electric multiple unit would have so many possibilities?
I think I’ve seen the future and it just might work!
The Anonymous Widower 