Could A 125 Mph Electric Train With Batteries Handle The Midland Main Line?
In Bombardier’s 125 Mph Electric Train With Batteries, I investigated a pure electric train based on Bombardier’s proposed 125 mph bi-mode Aventra with batteries.
It would have the following characteristics.
- Electric power on both 25 KVAC overhead and 750 VDC third-rail.
- Appropriately-sized batteries.
- 125 mph running, where possible on electrification and/or battery power.
- Regenerative braking using the batteries.
- Low energy interiors and systems.
It would be a train with efficiency levels higher than any train seen before.
It would also be zero-carbon at the point of delivery.
An Example 125 mph Train
I will use the same size and specification of train, that I used in Bombardier’s 125 Mph Electric Train With Batteries.
- The train is five cars, with say four motored cars.
- The empty train weighs close to 180 tonnes.
- There are 430 passengers, with an average weight of 90 Kg each, with baggage, bikes and buggies.
- This gives a total train weight of 218.7 tonnes.
- The train is travelling at 200 kph or 125 mph.
Travelling at 200 kph, the train has an energy of 94.9 kWh.
I will also assume.
- The train uses 15 kWh per mile to maintain the required line speed and power the train’s systems.
- Regenerative braking is eighty percent efficient.
I will now do a few calculations.
Kettering To Leicester
Suppose one of the proposed trains was running between St. Pancras and Leicester.
- I’m assuming there are no stops.
- In a year or two, it should be able to run as far as Kettering using the new and improved 25 KVAC overhead electrification.
- The train would leave the electrification at Kettering with a full charge in the batteries.
- The train would also pass Kettering as close to the line speed as possible.
- Hopefully, the twenty-nine miles without electrification between Kettering and Leicester will have been updated to have the highest possible line speed, with many sections capable of supporting 125 mph running.
I can do a rough-and-ready calculation, as to how much energy has been expended between Kettering and Leicester.
- Twenty-nine miles at 15 kWh per mile is 435 kWh.
- The train has a kinetic energy of 94.9 kWh at 125 mph and twenty percent will be lost in stopping at Leicester, which is 19 kWh.
This means that a battery of at least 454 kWh will be needed to propel the train to Leicester.
Kettering To Sheffield
If the train went all the way without stopping between Kettering and Sheffield, the energy used would be much higher.
One hundred-and-one miles at 15 kWh is 1515 kWh.
So given that the train will be slowing and accelerating, we’re probably talking of a battery capacity of around 2000 kWh.
In our five-car example train, this is 400 kWh per car.
Kettering To Sheffield With Stops
The previous calculation shows what can be achieved, but we need a practical train service.
When I last went to Sheffield, the train stopped at Leicester, Loughborough, East Midlands Parkway, Long Eaton, Derby and Chesterfield.
I have built an Excel spreadsheet, that models this route and it shows that if the train has a battery capacity of 2,000 kWh, the train will get to Sheffield with 371 kWh left in the battery.
- Increase the efficiency of the regenerative braking and the energy left is 425 kWh.
- Reduce the train’s energy consumption to 12 kWh per mile and the energy left is 674 kWh.
- Do both and the energy left is 728 kWh.
The message is clear; train manufacturers and their suppliers should use all efforts to improve the efficiencies of trains and all of their components.
- Aerodynamics
- \Weight savings
- Bogie dynamics
- Traction motors
- Battery capacity and energy density
- Low energy lighting and air-conditioning
No idea however wacky should be discarded.
Network Rail also has a part to play.
- The track should have as a high a line speed as is practical.
- Signalling and timetabling should be designed to minimise interactions with other services.
Adding all these together, I believe that in a few years, we could see a train, that will consume 10 kWh per mile and have a regenerative braking efficiency of ninety-five percent.
If this can be achieved then the train will have 960 kWh in the batteries when it arrives in Sheffield.
Sheffield To Kettering
There is no helpful stretch of electrification at the Sheffield end of the route, so I will assume that there is a method of charging the batteries at Sheffield.
Unsurprisingly, as the train is running the same total distance and making the same number of stops, if the train starts with a full battery at Sheffield, it arrives at Kettering with the same amount of energy in the battery, as on the Northbound-run to Sheffield.
An Interim Conclusion
I am led to the interim conclusion, that given the continued upward curve of technology and engineering, that it will be possible to run 125 mph electric trains with an appropriately-sized battery.
How Much Battery Capacity Can Be Installed In A Train?
In Issue 864 of Rail Magazine, there is an article entitled Scotland High Among Vivarail’s Targets for Class 230 D-Trains, where this is said.
Vivarail’s two-car battery units contains four 100 kWh lithium-ion battery rafts, each weighing 1.2 tonnes.
Consider.
- Vivarail’s cars are 18.37 metres long.
- Car length in a typical Aventra, like a Class 720 train, is 24 metres.
- Aventras have been designed for batteries and supercapacitors, whereas the D78 trains, used as a base for the Class 230 train,were not.
- Batteries and supercapacitors are getting better all the time.
- Batteries and supercapacitors can probably be built to fit in unusually-shaped spaces.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see Aventras being able to take double the capacity of a Class 230 train under each car.
I wouldn’t rule out 2,000 kWh energy storage capacity on a five-car train, that was designed for batteries.
The actual size installed would depend on operator, weight, performance and cost.
My Excel spreadsheet shows that for reliable operation between Kettering and Sheffield, a battery of at least 1200 kWh is needed, with a very efficient train.
Charging Trains En-Route
I covered en-route charging fully in Charging Battery/Electric Trains En-Route.
I came to this conclusion.
I believe it is possible to design a charging system using proven third-rail technology and batteries or supercapacitors to transfer at least 200 kWh into a train’s batteries at each stop.
This means that a substantial top up can be given to the train’s batteries at stations equipped with a fast charging system.
An Astonishing Set Of Results
I use astonishing lightly, but I am very surprised.
I assumed the following.
- The train uses 15 kWh per mile to maintain the required line speed and power the train’s systems.
- Regenerative braking is eighty percent efficient.
- The train is fitted with 600 kWh of energy storage.
- At each of the six stations up to 200 kWh of energy can be transferred to the train.
Going North the train arrives in Sheffield with 171 kWh in the energy storage.
Going South the train arrives at Kettering with 61 kWh in the energy storage.
Probably a bit tight for safety, but surprising nevertheless.
I then tried with the following.
- The train uses 12 kWh per mile to maintain the required line speed and power the train’s systems.
- Regenerative braking is ninety percent efficient.
- The train is fitted with 500 kWh of energy storage.
- At each of the six stations up to 200 kWh of energy can be transferred to the train.
Going North the train arrives in Sheffield with 258 kWh in the energy storage.
Going South the train arrives at Kettering with 114 kWh in the energy storage.
It would appear that increasing the efficiency of the train gives a lot of the improvement.
Finally, I put everything, at what I feel are the most efficient settings.
- The train uses 10 kWh per mile to maintain the required line speed and power the train’s systems.
- Regenerative braking is ninety-five percent efficient.
- The train is fitted with 500 kWh of energy storage.
- At each of the six stations up to 200 kWh of energy can be transferred to the train.
Going North the train arrives in Sheffield with 325 kWh in the energy storage.
Going South the train arrives at Kettering with 210 kWh in the energy storage.
These sets of figures prove to me, that it is possible to design a 125 mph battery/electric hybrid train and a set of charging stations, that will make St. Pancras to Sheffield by electric train, a viable possibility without any more electrification.
Should The Train Be Fitted With A Means Of Charging The Batteries?
Why not?
Wires do go down and rest assured, a couple of battery/electric hybrids would get stuck!
So a small diesel or hydrogen generator to allow a train to limp a few miles might not be a bad idea.
Electrification Between Sheffield And Clay Cross On The Midland Main Line
In The UK’s New High Speed Line Being Built By Stealth, there is a sub-section with the same title as this sub-section.
This is the first part of that sub-section.
This article on Rail Technology Magazine is entitled Grayling Asks HS2 To Prepare For Electrification Of 25km Midland Main Line Route.
If this electrification happens on the Midland Main Line between Sheffield and Clay Cross, it will be another project in turning the line into a high speed route with a 200 kph operating speed, between London and Sheffield.
Currently, the electrified section of the line South of Bedford is being upgraded and the electrification and quadruple tracks are being extended to Glendon Junction, where the branch to Corby leaves the main line.
The proposed electrification will probably involve the following.
- Upgrading the line to a higher speed of perhaps 225 kph, with provision to increase the speed of the line further.
- Rebuilding of Chesterfield station in readiness for High Speed Two.
- Full electrification between Sheffield and Clay Cross.
Clay Cross is significant, as it is where the Midland Main Line splits into two Southbound routes.
- The main route through the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site and Derby station.
- The secondary route of the Erewash Valley Line to the East Midlands Hub station.
Note.
- Some of the tunnel portals in the Derwent Valley are Listed.
- Trying to electrify the line through the World Heritage Site will be a legal and engineering nightmare.
- Network Rail has spent or is spending £250million on upgrading the Erewash Valley Line.
- High Speed Two will reach The East Midlands Hub station in 2032.
When High Speed Two, is extended North from the East Midlands Hub station, it will take a route roughly following the M1. A spur will link High Speed Two to the Erewash Valley line in the Clay Cross area, to enable services to Chesterfield and Sheffield.
But until High Speed Two is built North of the East Midlands Hub station, the Erewash Valley Line looks from my helicopter to be capable of supporting 200 kph services.
If this electrification is performed, it will transform the prospects for battery/electric hybrid trains between London and Sheffield.
- Trains will have to run fifteen miles less on battery power.
- Trains will arrive in both St. Pancras and Sheffield with batteries that are at least three-quarters full.
- Returning the trains will fill them up on the electrification at the end of the line.
- There will probably not be a need for charging systems at St. Pancras, Chesterfield and Sheffield.
I also think, that as the train could arrive in Sheffield with a full battery, there is the possibility of extending services past Sheffield to Barnsley, Huddersfield and cLeeds, if the operator felt it was a worthwhile service.
Nottingham
Nottingham is just eight miles from East Midlands Parkway station, which is less distance than Derby.
So if the battery/electric hybrid trains can reach Derby from Kettering on Battery power, with some help from charging at Leicester and Loughborough, the trains can reach Nottingham, where charging would be installed.
Conclusion
From my calculations, I’m sure that an efficient battery/electric hybrid train can handle all current services on the Midland Main Line, with third-rail charging at intermediate stations.
I do think though, that if Sheffield to Clay Cross Junction is electrified in preparation for High Speed Two, that it makes the design easier and the economics a lot better.
It would also give Sheffield a genuine sub-two hour service to London, which would only get better.
Station Dwell Times On The London Overground
This afternoon, I had to go to Walthamstow for lunch, so on the way out, I checked how long it was between brakes on at James Street station and the Class 315 train was moving again.
The dwell time was a very respectable thirty seconds, which is probably more down to the driver and the signalling, than the nearly-forty-year-old train.
Coming back, I took the Gospel Oak to Barking Line to Gospel Oak station..
The driver gave a display of precision driving a Class 172 train, with the intermediate stops, all taking thirty seconds or less.
From Gospel Oak, I switched to the North London Line and took a Class 378 train to Canonbury station, from where I walked home.
The dwell times on this line were more variable, with two times at thirty seconds or less, two at nearly two minutes and the rest in-between.
From these small number of observations, it would appear that the minimum dwell time on the London Overground is thirty seconds.
Various factors will determine the actual dwell time.
- Trains must not leave early, as passengers don’t like this.
- Trains must not leave, before the driver has ascertained it is safe to do so.
- If a train arrives early, then the dwell time might be lengthened, even if the train leaves on time.
- Large numbers of passengers or a passenger in a wheelchair, who needs a ramp will lengthen the dwell time.
I should say that today, the trains were not full and there were plenty of empty seats.
Conclusions
If trains and drivers can handle thirty second dwell times, then everything else associated with a station stop, must be capable of the same fast response.
This thirty-second dwell time may have repercussions for rapid charging of battery/electric trains, that I wrote about in Charging A Battery-Powered Class 230 Train.
I think there are three options for charging a train at a station stop.
Plug the Train Into A Power Socket
Can you plug you mobile phone into the mains, give it a reasonable charge and then disconnect it and store all leads in thirty seconds?
Use a Pantograph To Connect To 25 KVAC Overhead Electrification
Even if a driver or automation is very fast at raising and lowering the pantograph, I don’t believe that in a total time of thirty seconds, enough electricity can be passed to the train.
This method might work well in longer stop at a terminal station, but it is unlikely, it could be used successfully at an intermediate stop.
Use 750 VDC Third-Rail Electrification
750 VDC third-rail electrification has a very big advantage, in that, trains can connect and disconnect to the electrification automatically, without any driver intervention.
Look at this picture of a train going over a level-crossing.
The ends of the third-rails on either side or the crossing are sloped so that the contact shoes on the train can disconnect and connect smoothly.
As you have to design the system for a possible thirty-second stop and don’t have the time available for the first two options, I am fairly certain, that the only way a worthwhile amount of electricity can be transferred to the train’s battery, is to use some form of system based on tried-and-tested 750 VDC third rail electrification.
There may also be advantages in using a longer length of third-rail, so that the connection time is increased and more than one contact shoe can connect at the same time.
Automation would control the power to the third-rail, so that no live rail is exposed to passengers and staff.
After all a train on top, is a pretty comprehensive safety guard.
.
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.
The Paddington Fiasco
Everybody is looking for a scapegoat for the problems at Paddington station, that is reported in this article on the BBC, which is entitled Paddington Station: Passengers Face Major Disruption.
Tony Miles of Modern Railways was on BBC Breakfast this morning and he explained what happened.
The Class 802 train was accumulating the 2,000 miles it needs before it can be accepted by Great Western Railway.
The trains are designed to be able to change from diesel to electric power and vice-versa at line speed.
This train was raising the pantograph to access the pverhead wires on a section of British Rail-era overhead wires at Ealing.
The pantograph is thought to have bounced and the overhead wires have broken and become entangled in the pantograph.
Modern electrification with its heavyweight gantries has each line wired separately, but according to Tony Miles, the British Rail lightweight system, means if one comes down, they all fail.
I should add, that several times in the last ten years on the East Coast Main and Great Eastern Main Lines, I have been on trains that have been stranded by failed overhead wires.
In addition, over the last few years, it has been a nightmare travelling to Ipswich, as Network Rail have been renewing the overhead wires to a modern standard.
There are still many miles of this sub-standard British Rail-era overhead wiring all over the country.
It should all be replaced with new modern systems.
There is a problem though with the new modern electrification systems. They are ugly and many believe they are totally out-of-place in the countryside.
There is also the problem caused by the disruption, when the old systems are removed.
Conclusion
This sub-standard overhead electrification should have been removed years ago.
Prototype Overhead Line Structure Revealed
The title of this post is the same as that of this article on Global Rail News.
This is the first paragraph.
A prototype overhead line structure (OLS) designed to be quick to install, easy to maintain and more attractive to look at has been unveiled by its creators, Mott MacDonald and Moxon Architects.
Searching the Internet, I found this press release about the structure, which is entitled Moxon and Mott MacDonald unveil prototype for innovative Integrated Overhead Line Structure.
This picture is from the press release.
Various advantages are claimed.
- Reduced visual impact.
- Complete interoperability with existing overhead systems.
- Reduced number of components.
- Ease of installation.
- No additional engineer training.
- Reduced maintenance costs.
I like the concept, but is it too radical for Network Rail to give its blessing?
Perhaps the most radical feature is the use of laminated wood in the structure.
Conclusion
This is a very good design, but I doubt we’ll see it installed on UK railways.
Colne To Skipton Rail Line Re-Opening Campaign Moves Forwards
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article in the Lancashire Telegraph.
This is the first paragraph.
A meeting at the House of Commons hosted by Pendle MP Andrew Stephenson and his Labour counterpart for Keighley John Grogan convened senior officials from the Department of Transport (DfT), Transport for the North (TfN), Network Rail and commercial companies with an interest in East-West rail links.
Like many at the meeting, I feel very strongly that this link should be built.
There are obviously local reasons, like better passenger services between the conurbations of Blackburn/Accrington/Burnley and Leeds/Bradford, but there is something far more important.
Extra Train Paths Across The Pennines
Currently, trains take about twenty minutes between Rose Grove and Colne stations, over the mainly single track line.
I think it would be possible for experts to design a railway between Rose grove and Skipton stations via Colne, that would offer paths for three trains per hour (tph) across the Pennines in both directions. It might even be possible to accommodate four tph, using a combination of passing loops and digital signalling.
It should be noted that currently, the traffic through Accrington on the Calder Valley Line, which is to the West of Rose Grove station is around three tph in both directions. As the route is double-track, with modern trains and modern signalling, surely a higher frequency can be achieved.
These extra paths would be invaluable during the upgrading of the main TransPennine routes from Leeds to Manchester via Huddersfield.
I have some questions about the link.
Should The Link Be Double-Track?
Given that it will probably be difficult to put a double track on the Bank Top Viaduct over Burnley, I feel that to get the needed extra capacity, where it is possible to squeeze in a double-track, this should be done.
Should The Link Be Electrified?
Operationally, this would probably be preferable, but there are reasons why it could be difficult.
- There are a lot of quality stone bridges over all routes in the area.
- The heritage lobby might object to gantries marching across the Pennines.
- Network Rail’s abysmal performance on installing electrification.
It would also be sensible to electrify between Preston and Rose Grove stations, which would add substantially to the cost.
Passenger services wouldn’t be too much of a problem, as I am fairly certain that hydrogen-powered or battery trains could be used. The four-car Class 321 Hydrogen would probably by ideal.
Freight trains are probably better under electric power, rather than the awful Class 66 locomotives. Especially, if freight trains were run in the middle of the night.
I think the budget will decide on electrification.
Conclusion
I feel it is imperative, that to reduce the chaos of the TransPennine upgrade, work should start on the creation of the Skipton to Colne Link immediately.
Is This The Solution To A Charging Station For Battery Trains?
This page on the Opbrid web site has a main title of Automatic High Power Charging for Buses, Trucks, and Trains.
It also has a subtitle of Furrer+Frey Opbrid Charging Stations for Battery Trains.
Furrer + Frey are a Swiss railway engineering company, that design and build railway electrification systems.
The web page gives this introduction.
Since 2009, Furrer+Frey has developed a multi-modal ultra high power charging station for battery-powered vehicles that is already radically changing the way traction power is delivered to road and rail vehicles. In particular, the Furrer+Frey Railbaar system targets existing low traffic diesel traction routes as well as new light rail and tram projects. The technology applies to battery powered trams and trains (Railbaar), buses (Busbaar) and trucks (Trukbaar) with a design rooted in proven Swiss electric rail technology already successfully deployed by Furrer+Frey across Europe and the world.
The web page has an interesting image for a Swiss company.
Shown is a Class 379 train, at a station, which I’m pretty sure is Cambridge.
Liverpool Street to Cambridge is a fully-electrified route, so why would a charging station be needed on this service?
I can’t think of a reason.
So I suspect, it’s just that to illustrate the web page, they needed to use a train that had the capability of running under battery power, which the Class 379 did in the BEMU trial of 2015.
It could also be that Furrer + Frey are working with Bombardier and it’s a Bombardier library picture.
But then Furrer + Frey probably work with all the major train manufacturers.
And as Bombardier have just released a new battery train, that I wrote about in Bombardier Introduces Talent 3 Battery-Operated Train, it would be logical that the two companies are working together, as battery trains will surely need charging in stations to develop longer routes.
Note the blue box in the middle of the picture. It says.
Download White Paper On 25 Kv Train Charging
If you download the white paper, you will find a very comprehensive and detailed description of how battery trains could be charged in stations. This is the introductory paragraph.
Battery-powered trains are rapidly becoming the vehicle of choice for the replacement of diesel
trains on non-electrified rail lines. Often there is not enough traffic on these lines to justify the expense of erecting overhead line equipment (OLE) along the track. In many cases, the train runs under OLE for part of its route where the battery train can charge via its pantograph. However, sometimes additional charging is required. While it is possible to erect additional kilometers of OLE for charging, it is more cost effective to charge the train via pantograph while stopped at a station using a very short length of overhead conductor rail and a 25 kV power supply.
I will now try to explain the solution.
The white paper gives this physical description of the solution.
The physical structure of the charging station is quite simple.
It consists of a short length of overhead conductor rail, approximately 20 m to 200 m in length. This length depends on the type, length, and number of battery trains that will be charging at one time. The conductor rail is supported by normal trackside posts and high voltage insulators. Insulated cables lead from the power supply to the conductor rail, with the return path from the running
rails. Furrer+Frey makes 25 kV and 15 kV overhead conductor rail systems that are ideal for this
purpose.
The design seems to use readily available components.
What Is Overhead Conductor Rail?
This picture, that I took on the Thameslink platforms at St. Pancras station, shows the overhead conductor rail, used to power the trains.
St. Pancras is one of the best places to see overhead conductor rail in London, although overhead conductor rail will be used by Crossrail in the tunnels.
How Would Overhead Conductor Rail Be Used To Charge A Train’s Batteries?
A short length of such a rail, would be mounted above the track in the station, so that it could be accessed by the train’s pantograph.
The rail would be positioned so that it was exactly over the train track, at the height required by the train.
What Voltage Would Be Used?
The normal overhead voltage in the UK, is 25 KVAC. There is no reason to believe that any other voltage would be used.
The overhead conductor rail/pantograph combination has a lot of advantages and benefits.
The Overhead Conductor Rail Is Standard
The overhead conductor rail is a standard Furrer + Frey product and it can be supported in any of the appropriate ways the company has used around the world.
This picture shows conductor rail fixed to the wall in Berlin HBf station.
Or it could be fixed to gantries like these at Gospel Oak station, which carry normal overhead wiring.
Note that gantries come in all shapes and sizes.
The Overhead Conductor Rail Can Be Any Convenient Length
There is probably a minimum length, as although drivers can stop the trains very precisely, a few extra metres will give a margin of error.
But there is no reason why at a through platform on a line served by battery trains, couldn’t have an overhead rail, that was as long as the platform.
The Train Pantograph Is Standard
The pantograph on the train, that collects the current from the overhead conductor rail can be an almost standard unit, as it will be doing the same job as it does on electrified sections of the route.
The white paper goes into this in detail.
As in the UK, our overhead line voltage is 25 Kv, the train can receive 1 MW with a current of 40 A, which is probably low enough to be below the limit of the conductor rail/pantograph combination. This would allow around 80 kWh to be transferred to the train in a five minute charge.
Could Trains Use Two Pantographs To Charge Batteries?
The white paper says that the system could handle more than one train, if the overhead conductor rail was long enough.
Bombardier’s Class 345 trains are effectively two half-trains, which each have their own pantograph.
So could a train use both pantographs to charge the batteries?
A Sophisticated Pantograph Control System Could Be Used
The train would probably have a sophisticated control system to automatically raise and lower the pantograph, so as to maximise the charge, whilst the train was in the station.
The System Should Be Safe
The overhead conductor rail would be no closer to passengers and staff, than overhead wires and conductor rail are at any other station platform in the UK.
I also suspect, that the power to the overhead conductor rail would only be switched on, if a train was being charged.
Standard Solutions Could Be Developed
One application of battery trains is to use them on a branch without electrification from an electrified line to a simple station in a town, housing or commercial development or airport..
The terminal stations would be very simple and surprisingly similar.
- One platform.
- An overhead conductor rail on gantries, a wall or some other simple support.
- A power supply for the overhead conductor rail.
A station building,, shelters and information displays could be added to the solution or designed specifically for the location.
Solutions for a wide range of countries would only differ in a few areas.
- The height of the platform.
- The gauge of the track.
- The overhead conductor rail voltage.
But I do believe that in this example of a standard system, there will be surprising commonality across the world.
As the white paper identifies, there is at least one tricky problem.
The High Voltage Power Supply
Providing high-quality, reliable high-voltage supplies may not always be that easy in some areas, so innovative electrical solutions will certainly be needed.
One solution suggested in the white paper involves using energy storage and then creating the 25 KVAC to power the overhead conductor rail.
I like this solution, as there are many applications, where these forms of independent power supplies are needed to power industrial premises, villages and equipment like flood pumps, often in remote locations. They could also incorporate a wind turbine or solar panels.
Someone will develop these systems and providing 15 or25 KVAC will be just another application.
Conclusion
I will add the conclusion from the white paper, as it says it all.
Battery trains are now available to replace diesel
trains on existing non-electrified tracks. They can
be charged using AC 25 kV 50 Hz or AC 15 kV 16,7
Hz either while running under catenary or when at
a standstill at a station using a short length of
overhead conductor rail and an appropriate power
supply. Standstill charging avoids the need to
build long stretches of catenary along a track
thereby saving money, and allowing the electrification
of track previously thought to be uneconomic
to electrify. Battery trains also enable the
use of renewable energy sources. Moving towards
green energy sources reduces harmful emissions
and noise which positively impacts climate change
and improves health
I am sure, we’ll see a lot of uses of this simple and efficient method of charging battery trains.
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.
Bombardier’s 125 Mph Electric Train With Batteries
In Bombardier Bi-Mode Aventra To Feature Battery Power, I said this.
The title of this post is the same as this article in Rail Magazine.
A few points from the article.
- Development has already started.
- 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.
- The trains will be built at Derby.
- Bombardier’s spokesman said that the ambience will be better, than other bi-modes.
- Export of trains is a possibility.
Bombardier’s spokesman also said, that they have offered the train to three new franchises. East Midlands, West Coast Partnership and CrossCountry.
It has struck me, that for some applications, that the diesel engines are superfluous.
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.
Conversion to pure electric operation is also a key design feature, with the ability to remove the diesel engines and fuel tanks at a later date.
So why not swap the diesel engines and add an equal weight of extra batteries?
Batteries would have the following uses.
Handling Energy Generated By Regenerative Braking
Batteries would certainly be handling the regenerative braking.
This would give efficiency savings in the use of electricity.
The total battery power of the train, would have to be large enough to handle all the electricity generated by the regenerative braking.
In the Mathematics Of A Bi-Mode Aventra With Batteries, I calculated the kinetic energy of the train.
I’ll repeat the calculation and assume the following for a pure electric train.
- The train is five cars, with say four motored cars.
- The empty train weighs close to 180 tonnes.
- There are 430 passengers, with an average weight of 90 Kg each, with baggage, bikes and buggies.
- This gives a total train weight of 218.7 tonnes.
- The train is travelling at 200 kph or 125 mph.
These figures mean that the kinetic energy of the train is 94.8 kWh. This was calculated using Omni’s Kinetic Energy Calculator.
My preferred battery arrangement would be to put a battery in each motored car of the train, to reduce electrical loses and distribute the weight. Let’s assume four of the five cars have a New Routemaster-sized battery of 55 kWh.
So the total onboard storage of the train could easily be around 200 kWh, which should be more than enough to accommodate the energy generated , when braking from full speed..
Traction And Hotel Power
Battery power would also be available to move the train and provide hotel power, when there is no electrification.
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.
As the Aventra is probably one of the most modern of electric multiple units, I suspect that an Aventra will be at the lower end of this range.
An Intelligent Computer
The train’s well-programmed computer would do the following.
- Choose whether to use electrification or battery power to power the train.
- Decide when the battery could be charged, when electrification power was being used.
- Arrange, that when a train stopped at a station without electrification, the batteries were as full as possible.
- Manage power load, by shutting off or switching equipment to a low energy mode, when the train was running on batteries.
- Raise and lower the pantograph as required.
The computer could take account of factors such as.
- Passenger load and total weight.
- Route and train’s position.
- Weather.
- Future signals.
The computer would only be doing a similar job that is done by those in the flight control systems of aircraft.
Although, trains run in less dimensions and don’t need to be steered.
How Far Would This Train Go On Batteries?
This is question of the same nature as how long is a piece of string?
It depends on the following.
- The severity of the route.
- The size of the batteries.
- The load on the train.
- The number of stops.
- Any delays from slow-moving trains.
- The timetable to be used.
I would expect that train manufacturers and operating companies will have a sophisticated mathematical model of the train and the route, that can be run through various scenarios.
With modern computers you could do a Monte-Carlo simulation, trying out millions of combinations, which would give a very accurate value for the battery size to have a near hundred percent chance of being able to run the route to the timetable.
After all if you ran out of power with a battery train, you stop and the train has to be rescued.
Suppose you were going to run your 125 mph Electric Train With Batteries from Kings Cross to Middlesbrough.
- You would need a battery range of about fifty miles, to go between Northallerton and Middlesbrough stations and come back.
- You would also need to have enough power to provide hotel power in Middlesbrough station, whilst the train was turning back.
Certain things could be arranged so that the service runs smoothly.
- The train must leave the East Coast Main Line with a fully-charged battery.
- The train must leave the East Coast Main Line as fast as possible.
- The train should have a minimum dwell time at all the intermediate stops.
- The train could be driven very precisely to minimise energy use.
Some form of charging system could also be provided at Middlesbrough. Although it could be difficult as there are only two platforms and trains seem to turn round in a very short time of six minutes
Electrification could also be extended for two hundred metres or so, at Northallerton junction to ensure points 1 and 2 were met.
Effectively, trains would be catapulted at maximum energy towards Middlesbrough.
Points 3 and 4 require good signalling, a good Driver Advisory System and above all good driving and operation.
What Other Routes Could Use 125 mph Electric Trains With Batteries?
Use your imagination!
Braintree Freeport Station
These pictures show Braintree Freeport station on the Braintree Branch.
Note.
- There is one platform that can accommodate an eight-car formation of two Class 321 trains, so it must be at least 160 metres long.
- The platform is used in both directions.
- Like much of the electrification on the Great Eastern Main Line and its branches, it is not in the first flush of youth and some parts had evidence of repair.
- The station information could be better, but that is a problem on a lot of Greater Anglia’s smaller stations.
- The route to the Braintree Freeport Shopping Centre is about four hundred metres and not too taxing.
I suspect that a bit more TLC would improve this station.
But will the electrification on the Braintree Branch be replaced in the near future?
The New Class 720 Trains
I went to Braintree Freeport station in an eight-car formation of two Class 321 trains, which weren’t by any means full.
In Comparing Greater Anglia’s Old And New Electric Multiple Units, I said this.
Given that the Class 720 is a modern train, designed with passengers, staff and operators in mind, I can’t see any problems with replacing the current eight-car trains with a five-car Class 720 train
I also suspect that if required, an extra car could be added to make six-car trains with a length of 146 metres, that would be shorter than an eight-car Class 321 train. .
If a single Class 720 train isn’t enough capacity for the Braintree Branch, then by adding a passing loop at Cressing station, the frequency of trains on the branch can be doubled, which could attract more passengers to the route.
Could the Braintree Branch Have The Electrification Removed?
This may seem like a retrograde step, but consider the following.
- I’m fairly certain, that the Class 720 trains, which are Aventras have been designed to use batteries to handle regenerative braking and the trains have a useful range on battery power.
- The Braintree Branch is only six miles long.
- The electrification will have to be replaced or upgraded in the next few years.
- Building the loop at Cressing station without electrification would be a cost saving.
- There are no other services on the branch, except the occasional diesel-hauled engineering train.
- The batteries would be charged between Liverpool Street and Witham stations.
I would be very surprised, if removing the electrification and using battery power is not being considered.
Conclusion
New Class 720 trains with a battery capability and the addition of a passing loop at Cressing station would improve the Braintree Branch line.
The Anonymous Widower 