The Anonymous Widower

The Pressure For More Rail Electrification

Over the last few days, there have been several articles on the media pushing for more electrification.

This article in Rail Technology Magazine, which is entitled TfGM To Fight Corner For Full TransPennine Electrification.

This article in the Carlisle Times and Star, which is entitled Campaigners Urge Backtrack On Axed Electric Rail Projects.

This article in the Times, which is entitled New Oxford-Cambridge Rail Route Must Rely On Diesel Trains.

This article in the Nottingham Post, which is entitled Strong Condemnation Of Government Plan To Abandon Rail Electrification.

I feel that electric trains are the future, but like members of the current Government, I feel that we need an alternative approach to creating a modern railway network in the UK.

What Do Passengers Want?

Passengers in general want a comprehensive rail service, that is affordable, reliable, fast and frequent and gives them good comfort and service on trains and at their terminal stations.

What Do Train Operating Companies Want?

Train companies need and want to make profits.

Judging by the latest franchise awards to Northern, TransPennine Express, Greater Anglia, South Western Railway and West Midlands Trains, part of their philosophy to achieve this is to buy fleets of new trains to replace old ones, with the following characteristics.

  1. More carriages and increased capacity.
  2. Higher speed and performance.
  3. Power and USB points, wi-fi and 4G connectivity.
  4. Easier entrance and exit.
  5. Better facilities for persons of reduced mobility.
  6. Shorter dwell times at stations.
  7. Better driver assistance systems.

The best way to pay for these trains and make a profit is to fill them with happy passengers.

So Where Does Electrification Give Advantages?

In summarising what passengers and train companies want, I didn’t mention electrification, although electric trains do give advantages to both groups.

  • It must be easy to fit electrical equipment into an electric train.
  • Electric trains accelerate faster.
  • Electric trains can be fitted with regenerative braking to save energy

Electrification is not needed in all cases as electricity for the train can be provided by diesel or hydrogen-powered generators or some form of onboard energy storage can be used.

Why Are So Many Elecification Schemes In The UK Over Budget And Late?

With my experience of writing Project Management software and talking about it with numerous Project Managers all over the world, I suspect the following about electrifying an existing railway in the UK.

  • The drawings and documentation for some of the existing lines which go back well over a hundred years is questionable.
  • Politicians put undue pressure to keep costs down and corners are cut.
  • The scope of the project changes as it progresses.
  • Those against the electrification have lots of routes to delay the project.
  • We don’t have enough engineers or qualified personnel to do the work.
  • Often work is on constricted sites and the locals get annoyed.

I’m coming to the conclusion, that electrification is one of the most difficult of projects.

I do feel though there is hope for the future judged on what happened at Waterloo during August.

The Future Of Road Transport

We are seeing more and more electric and hybrid vehicles on the roads and this article in the Guardian, says that Britain will ban the sale of all diesel and petrol cars by 2040.

For this to happen, there needs to be a vast improvement in the efficiency and size of energy storage systems.

A few years ago, if you’d fitted solar panels to your house, your neighbours would have laughed at you. Now they don’t as technology has improved the performance of solar panels, just like it will improve energy storage in the next few years.

What Will Improved Energy Storage Mean For Trains?

The first trains with onboard energy storage are starting to appear on the UK’s railways.

Class 800 trains – Intercity Express Programme

This document on the Hitachi Rail web site, which is entitled Development of Class 800/801 High-speed Rolling Stock for UK Intercity Express Programme.

 

The document provides this schematic of the traction system of a Class 800 train.

Note BC which is described as battery charger.

This is said in the text.

The system can select the appropriate power source from either the main transformer or the GUs. Also, the size and weight of the system were minimized by designing the power supply converter to be able to work with both power sources. To ensure that the Class 800 and 801 are able to adapt to future changes in operating practices, they both have the same traction system and the rolling stock can be operated as either class by simply adding or removing GUs. On the Class 800, which is intended to run on both electrified and non-electrified track, each traction system has its own GU. On the other hand, the Class 801 is designed only for electrified lines and has one or two GUs depending on the length of the trainset (one GU for trainsets of five to nine cars, two GUs for trainsets of 10 to 12 cars). These GUs supply emergency traction power and auxiliary power in the event of a power outage on the catenary, and as an auxiliary power supply on non-electrified lines where the Class 801 is in service and pulled by a locomotive. This allows the Class 801 to operate on lines it would otherwise not be able to use and provides a backup in the event of a catenary power outage or other problem on the ground systems as well as non-electrified routes in loco-hauled mode.

Note that GU refers to Generator Unit, which in these trains are diesel-powered.

This is all very comprehensive, but if you look at how the braking system of the trains work and if it uses regenerative braking, you won’t find anything on the web.

But note how the four traction motors in the diagram are connected to the system. When they are in braking mode, what happens to the electricity?

  1. It is returned to the overhead wires. Difficult when using GUs on lines without electrification.
  2. It is passed to resistors on the roof of the train and burnt off as heat.
  3. It is stored in some form of onboard energy storage, so it can be reused later.

I feel that Hitachi are using Option 3, as it would work in both modes of the train and would save a lot of energy.

Note that in the above extract from the Hitachi document, the company states that the electric Class 801 trains have at least one GU to provide auxiliary and traction power in the event of catenary failure.

It looks like the only difference between the Class 800 and Class 801 trains, is that the Class 800 trains have more GUs.

Could this explain why Hitachi seem to be doing all their testing with Class 800 trains, as the differences between the two trains are minimal?

If the Class 800 works, then the Class 801 will!

Hitachi are also testing the Class 802 trains, but then these are built in Italy, have more powerful engines and bigger fuel tanks.

Bombardier Aventras

Bombardier have been developing battery technology for some years and as I described in Is The Battery Electric Multiple Unit (BEMU) A Big Innovation In Train Design?, I rode in the prototype converted from a Class 379 train in February 2015.

I believe that the Class 345 trains are fitted with onboard energy storage for the following reasons.

  • Onboard energy storage is the logical way to handle regenerative braking in tunnels.
  • Onboard energy storage means that each train reuses its own braking energy and draws less current from the electrification.
  • Onboard energy storage is the only way to move a train to a safe place, when the Russians or North Koreans hack the power suppky.
  • Some of the features announced for Aventras, like remote wakeup as I discussed in Do Bombardier Aventras Have Remote Wake-Up?, need onboard energy storage.
  • Bombardier have won awards for the technology.

Until Bombardier say otherwise, I’ll assume that Aventras like the Class 345 trains have onboard energy storage.

Overhead Power In Long Tunnels

It should also be noted that the overhead power supply in the Crossrail tunnels is a rail fed with power at both ends, as incidentally is the Severn Tunnel.

Could it be that money could have been saved on the electrification of these tunnels as all electric trains using them; IEPs and Aventras, can handle their own regenerative braking energy?

The Effect Of Large Onboard Energy Storage On Trains and Trams

There is a big difference between adding weight to a pneumatic-tyred vehicle like a car or truck, and adding weight to that of a steel-wheel-on-steel-rail vehicle like a train or tram.

With the former, the rolling resistance is increased, which means more power is needed to move the vehicle, but with the latter, surprisingly, the reverse is true.

This allows locomotives to pull iron ore, coal and stone trains carrying hundreds of tonnes.

So adding a heavy energy storage device under a train may not be as detrimental to performance as you may think.

I suspect Bombardier, Hitachi and others have determined the optimal size of storage device for their trains.

I believe the following,  if an appropriately-sized online storage device is fitted to a train.

  • It will be able to handle all the regenerative braking energy.
  • It will give the train a range of up to fifty kilometres on stored energy.

Without doubt, all trains driven by electricity and having regenerative braking will use onboard energy storage.

This applies even if their main power source is not electricity, but perhaps diesel, hydrogen or extra-strong knicker elastic!

Discontinuous Electrification

Modern trains like Aventras and Hitachi Class 80x trains have another ability.

They can raise and lower their pantographs under GPS control, so that they only connect with the electrification, when it is there.

They can also do it at line speed.

This raises the possibility of discontinuous electrification, where the easy-to-electrify sections have wires and the difficult bits are run using either diesel, hydrogen or onboard storage power.

An example would be between Batley and Morley stations on the Huddersfield Line, between which is the Morley Tunnel.

  • The tunnel is four kilometres long and hopefully could be electrified using a conductor rail in the tunnel roof.
  • Morley station is hard by the Northern portal of the tunnel.
  • The line from Morley to the electrification at Leeds doesn’t appear to have any serious bridges to replace and the double-track line has wide margins.
  • Batley, Morley and Cottingley stations are all stations with platforms either side of the track and could probably have the gantries on the platform.

Would it be possible to electrify short sections of line like this and let the trains and the driver decide to use onboard or overhead power?

The TransPennine Route

I will look at the TransPennine route in detail.

Mainly Electrically-Driven Trains

Looking at the various trains on TransPennine routes, we see the following ways of driving the trains and locomotives.

The last three trains and all the locomotives in this list are electrically driven, where on-board diesel engines generate electricity to power the train.

In addition the Class 802 trains and the Class 88 locomotives are bi-mode and can use electrification to power the trains directly, if it is available.

So a Liverpool to Newcastle service using Class 802 trains or Class 88 locomotives and Mark 5 carriages could use the overhead electrification on the following sections of track.

  • From Liverpool to Stalybridge via Manchester Victoria
  • Through Leeds
  • On the East Coast Main Line

Electrifying between Leeds and the East Coast Main Line would seem to be a lot easier than that between Leeds and Manchester, so I suspect that there is some seriously difficulty that has prevented it being done already, as it would allow Kings Cross to Edinburgh services to stop at Leeds, if that was desired.

Improving The Current Service

Currently Liverpool Lime Street to Newcastle takes three hours and three minutes, with the following sectional times.

  • Liverpool to Manchester Victoria – 39 minutes
  • Manchester Victoria to Huddersfield – 30 minutes
  • Huddersfield to Leeds – 22 minutes
  • Leeds to York – 25 minutes
  • York to Newcastle – 67 minutes

Some places to save times are apparent.

  • Liverpool to Manchester Victoria could be speeded up by a couple of minutes, after the addition of the fourth track at Huyton.
  • According to the time table, most dwell times are reasonable, but nine minutes is allowed at Manchester Victoria.
  • Manchester Victoria to Stalybridge is being electrified.
  • Virgin’s fastest trains take 56 minutes between York and Newcastle, so I would assume that a TransPennine Class 802 train could match this.
  • If Leeds to York were to be electrified, I would think that the same percentage decrease in journey time could be expected, which would give a Leeds to York time of 21 minutes.

Could we see the following times on the route?

  • Liverpool to Manchester Victoria – 30 minutes
  • Manchester Victoria to Huddersfield – 28 minutes
  • Huddersfield to Leeds – 22 minutes
  • Leeds to York – 21 minutes
  • York to Newcastle – 56 minutes

This gives a timing of 157 minutes, which is a saving of twenty-three minutes.

Is The Track Up To It?

Under Timings And Line Speeds in the Wikipedia entry for Liverpool and Manchester Lines, this is said.

As of 2016, the fastest journey times are around half an hour, which is little better than over a century earlier. The fastest recorded run was from Manchester Exchange to Liverpool Lime St in 30 minutes 46 seconds by a 1936 built Jubilee 5707 with 7 coaches. An 1882-built compound steam locomotive was timed on the same route in 38 minutes 18 seconds. Until 1968 trains from Liverpool to Manchester by all 3 routes were scheduled to take 40 minutes and often took less. The southern route via Warrington is now restricted to 85 mph and the northern route via Earlestown to 90 mph, with 75 mph over Chat Moss.

Work is under way to four-track the line between Huyton and Roby which is scheduled for completion in December 2017.

Surely, Twenty-First Century engineering can sort out Stephenson‘s problems of nearly two centuries ago!

If it’s like this between Liverpool and Manchester on a fully-electrified line, what’s it like between Manchester and Leeds?

I believe that modern engineering should be able to create a 100 mph route between Liverpool and Leeds.

Are The Other Trains Slowing The Expresses?

Northern run an assortment of trains between Liverpool and Leeds via Manchester Victoria.

Between Liverpool and Manchester Victoria are all the services timed for and run by 100 mph Class 319 trains, or do some of the assortment of 75 mph trains share the route? If it’s the latter then they will delay the expresses.

Between Manchester Victoria and Hudderfield, I’m sure that slower trains are on the route.

Help is at hand as Northern have ordered fifty-five Class 195 trains, which have a 100 mph capability.

Should Stalybridge To Leeds Be Electrified?

Only when slow trains have been eliminated and the track has been improved to allow 100 mph running between Liverpool and Leeds should we answer this question!

Using rough estimates, I feel we might see the following timings with a Class 802 train.

  • Liverpool to Manchester Victoria – 26 minutes
  • Manchester Victoria to Huddersfield – 21 minutes
  • Huddersfield to Leeds – 16 minutes
  • Leeds to York – 21 minutes
  • York to Newcastle – 56 minutes

This gives a timing of 140 minutes, which is a saving of forty-three minutes on the current times.

Improving Leeds To Newcastle

The Class 802 trains are stated in Wikipedia as being capable of running at 140 mph with minor modifications.

How many minutes would this take off the journey, if this were to be possible?

Conclusion

There are a lot of things to do before the decision to electrify Stalybridge to Leeds is taken.

  • Sort the track for at least 100 mph running.
  • Remove all passenger trains not capable of 100 mph from the line.
  • Perhaps add some passing loops.
  • Electrify Leeds to Colton Junction.
  • Remove all level crossings.
  • Raise all bridges and other structures, so that electrification is possible.
  • Get the planning permission for electrifying the sensitive areas.

Hopefully these actions in themselves would deliver a time of under forty minutes between Manchester and Leeds.

That would be a spoonful of sugar for the passengers and the train operating companies.

Any attempt to electrify without doing all of these actions before the decision to electrify is taken, will result in the sort of mess seen in some of the electrification schemes of the last few years.

The East West Rail Link

I will look at the East West Rail Link in detail.

Linking To Electrified Lines

The East West Rail Link joins or crosses the following electrified lines.

  • The Great Western Main Line at Didcot
  • The West Coast Main Line at Bletchley
  • The Midland Main Line at Bedford
  • The East Coast Main Line at Sandy
  • The West Anglia Main Line at Cambridge

As connecting the National Grid to electrification is a major cost, if the line were to be electrified, then there are several places to connect at a cheaper cost.

Building For Electrification

The instructions from the Department for Transport seem to have stated the following.

  • The line will be double track.
  • The line will have an operating speed of at least 100 mph or possibly 125 mph.
  • All bridges and structures, will be built to accommodate overhead electrification.

I wonder if the specification suggests preparing the margins of the route, so putting up overhead gantries wouldn’t be a case of digging and hitting important cables or pipes.

Electrification of new lines like the East London Line, Crossrail and the Hitchin Flyover seem to have proceeded much smoother than schemes like the Gospel Oak to Barking Line.

Trains For The East-West Rail Link

The proposed services include.

  • Oxford to Bedford
  • Bletchley to Bedford
  • Oxford to Milton Keynes Central
  • Aylesbury to Milton Keynes Central.

I have also seen suggestions that the trains terminate at Reading.

The trains will need the following.

  • A 100 mph capability to make good use of the route.
  • Ability to use overhead electrification to get to Bedford, Milton Keynes Central and Reading.
  • Ability to use diesel to use the Chiltern routes to Aylesbury and Marylebone.

To meet all these requirements, it would appear bi-mode trains like a Class 800 train are needed.

Should The East-West Rail Link Be Electrified?

Consider.

  • The trains chosen for the route will be bi-mode and so the line doesn’t need to be electrified.
  • Freight trains using the route would be hauled by a diesel locomotive or possibly a bi-mode locomotive like a Class 88 locomotive.

However, if at a future date, all or part of the electrification were to be deemed needed, if the line had been built with electrification in mind, putting up the wires would be a lot easier than on the TransPennine route.

Conclusions

I have come to these conclusions from these two examples.

  • The bi-mode route allows a lot of flexibility and means that electrification with all its problems can be done when it is really necessary.
  • The bi-mode route, also means that passengers get the benefits of modern,  faster and more frequent trains at an earlier date.
  • Electrification of a new line is easier than electrifying an old Victorian one.
  • All new or reopened lines should be built to allow electrification at a future date.

Don’t underestimate the ingenuity of railway engineers to make a more comprehensive railway powered by electricity possible.

September 10, 2017 Posted by | Energy Storage, Transport/Travel | , , , , | 1 Comment

Electrification ‘Very Unlikely’ To Come Back Into EWR Scheme

The title of this post is the same as this article on Rail Technology Magazine.

This is a quote from Andy Free, who is head of engineering of the alliance that is building the East West Rail Link.

The steer from the DfT is that wherever the Alliance is building a new structure it needs to be clear and suitable for electrification, “and we must do nothing that hinders future electrification, but it is not on the short- or medium-term horizon.

Given the developments in bi-mode trains in recent years, I suspect this is a sensible policy.

Electrification is probably cheaper to fit to a train in a nice warm factory in Derby or Newton Aycliffe, than at a remote location in the pouring rain and the howling wind.

In the case of the East West Rail Link, where sections of the route are well defined, as they are existing rail alignments, building the route would involve.

  • Raising any over-bridges to be clear of future electrification.
  • Building any bridges or flyovers, where the new railway crosses over roads and other railways.
  • Preparing the track bed.
  • Laying the track.
  • Building or rebuilding the stations.

Note I have ignored signalling, as ideally that will be in-cab by radio.

Building the line without electrification must give advantages.

  • Network Rail seem to find it impossible to do electrification projects to time and budget.
  • Stations without electrification are safer places and easier to design and build.
  • There is less visual intrusion for Nimbys to complain about.
  • The cost of connecting the electrification to the National Grid is zero.
  • There is less copper cable to steal.

In Is A Bi-Mode Aventra A Silly Idea?, I outlined what I believe the ultimate bi-mode train will be like.

A bi-mode Aventra would be a sophisticated train with the following characteristics.

  • Electric drive
  • Regenerative braking.
  • 25 KVAC overhead and 750 VDC third rail capability.
  • Automatic pantograph deployment.
  • Onboard energy storage.
  • Automatic power source selection.
  • Diesel or hydrogen power-pack

The first four are probably already in service in the Class 345 train.

A train going from between Reading and Bedford on the East West Rail Link, would charge its energy storage at the terminals and then use this power along the route. If the train detected that the stored energy was running low, the diesel or hydrogen power-pack would cut in and charge the energy storage.

Conclusion

It is my view, that if you are building a new rail line that is not high speed or high frequency, that there is no need to electrify the line, as intelligent bi-mode trains will be able to work the route economically and without the noise, pollution and vibration problems of their diesel engines working all the time.

August 26, 2017 Posted by | Energy Storage, Transport/Travel | , , | Leave a comment

Will Innovative Electrification Be Used On The Uckfield Line?

Chris Gibb’s report into the Govia Thameslink Railway franchise recommended electrification of the Uckfield Line. The September 2017 Edition of Modern Railways has a detailed examination of the proposals.

Reasons For Electrification

Various reasons are given for the electrification.

  • Removing diesel trains from London Bridge station.
  • Operational flexibility.
  • More capacity
  • Stabling and refuelling considerations with the current Class 171 trains at Selhurst depot.
  • Increasing operational efficiency.

The Class 171 trains would probbly be better suited to other routes.

25 KVAC Ovhead Electrification

One of Chris Gibb’s recommendations is to use 25 KVAC overhead rather than 750 VDC third-rail electrification in an area, where third-rail is the norm.

He states that this is on cost grounds.

  • Third-rail needs a feed to the National Grid every two to three miles.
  • Overhead wires might need just one.
  • DC has higher transmission losses, than AC.

He also suggests the following.

  • Changeover between the existing third-rail and the new overhead systems would be South of Hurst Green Junction.
  • The three tunnels on the route would be electrified using overhead conductor rail.
  • Dual-voltage trains would be needed, which would change system on the move.
  • Class 377 or Class 700 trains would be used.

He also indicxates that Class 379 trains would be available from 2020.

Stabling At Crowborough

Chris Gibb suggests building stabling for four twelve-car trains at Crowborough for the following reasons.

  • It would improve crew efficiency.
  • Itwould give more time overnight for maintenance and train cleaning.
  • It would eliminate 75,000 miles of empty running a year.
  • It would give a £3.6 million a year cost saving.
  • It would give more space at Selhurst depot.

This sounds like a good idea.

Project Management And Finance

Chris Gibb gets very innovative about how the project should be managed, by suggesting that SNCF do the design for the electrification and then directly hire the contractor, bypassing Network Rail.

He also suggests an innovative way of financing the project, using private finance.

The Government’s Response

Chris Gibb recommendations of electrification and the stabling of trains at Crowborough have been accepted by the Government.

Conclusion

Surely, if private finance and planning permission can be obtained, this project should go ahead.

August 24, 2017 Posted by | Transport/Travel | , , | 3 Comments

Is A Bi-Mode Aventra A Silly Idea?

In How Long Will It Take Bombardier To Fulfil Their Aventra Orders?, when discussing the new West Midlands Trains franchise, that has recently been awarded, I said this about the proposed eighty new carriages for the Snow Hill Lines.

As it is unlikely that the Snow Hill Lines will be electrified in the near future, could we be seeing an Aventra bi-mode for the Snow Hill Lines?

So is the bi-mode Aventra a silly idea?

The Five-Car Aventra

It looks like the formation of a five car Aventra like a Class 720 train is something like DMSLW+MS+MS1+PMS+DMSL

The codes are as follows.

  • D – Driving
  • L – Lavatory
  • M – Motor
  • S – Standard Class
  • W – Wheelchair

So this means the following.

  • All cars are motored for fast acceleration and smooth regenerative braking.
  • As all cars are motored, there must be a heavy-duty electrical power bus running the length of the train.
  • Both driving cars have a toilet.
  • The wheelchair area and the fully-accessible toilet are probably together in one driving car.
  • The pantograph is on one of the middle three cars.

It should also be noted that the Aventra has a slightly unusual and innovative electrical layout.

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 six years ago, so I suspect Bombardier have refined the concept

It would appear that this could be the reason, why in the document I found MS1 was used for one of the intermediate cars, as this is the car with space for the energy storage.

Do Aventras Have Batteries For Regenerative Braking?

Until I get a definitive statement from Bombardier, that they don’t, I will believe that they do for the following reasons.

But the main reason, is that as an Electrical Engineer, I believe it to be stupid and seriously bad design to not use some form of energy storage to handle the energy produced by regenerative braking.

Energy Storage In A Bi-Mode Train

If you look at the five-car Class 720 train, all axles are motored. This will give fast acceleration and smooth regenerative braking, which is just what both train operators and passengers want.

If a bi-mode train had energy storage, if say its speed was checked by a yellow signal, it would be able to regain line speed using the energy stored when it slowed down. So passengers wouldn’t have to endure the vibration of the diesel engine and the jerks as it started.

No competent engineer would ever design a modern bi-mode train without energy storage.

Where Would You Put The Power Pack On An Aventra?

Although space has been left in one of the pair of power cars for energy storage, as was stated in the Global Rail News article, I will assume it is probably not large enough for both energy storage and a power pack.

So perhaps one solution would be to fit a well-designed power pack in the third of the middle cars, which would then be connected to the power bus to drive the train and charge the battery.

This is all rather similar to the Porterbrook-inspired and Derby-designed Class 769 train, where redundant Class 319 trains are being converted to bi-modes.

Diesel Or Hydrogen Power Pack

Diesel will certainly work well, but London and other cities have hydrogen-powered buses.

The picture is from 2013, so the technology has probably moved on. This Fuel Cell Bus section in Wikipedia gives the up-to-date picture.

Automatic Power Source Selection

Effectively, the ideal bi-mode train will be a tri-mode and will have the following power sources.

  • Traditional electrification.
  • On board diesel or hydrogen power.
  • Energy storage, charged from the electrification or from regenerative braking.

The power source would be chosen automatically to minimise the use of both diesel/hydrogen power and electric power from the electrification.

Modern trains like an Aventra can raise and lower the pantograph automatically, so they can do this to make best use of what electrification exists to both power the train and charge the energy storage.

Techniques like these will be used to minimise the use of the diesel or hydrogen power pack.

Intermittent And Selective Electrification

On lines like the Snow Hill Lines sections could be electrified, where the engineering is easy and affordable, to with time reduce the use of unfriendly diesel or expensive hydrogen.

Strangely, one of the first places to electrify, might be the tunnels, as after the electrification of the Severn Tunnel, our engineers can probably electrify any railway tunnel.

I also don’t see why third rail electrification can’t be used in places like on top of viaducts and in well-designed station installations.

The 125 mph Bi-Mode Aventra

This article on Christian Wolmar’s web site is entitled Bombardier’s Survival Was The Right Kind Of Politics. This is said.

Bombardier is not resting on its laurels. Interestingly, the company has been watching the problems over electrification and the fact that more of Hitachi’s new trains will now be bi-mode because the wires have not been put up in time. McKeon has a team looking at whether Bombardier will go into the bi-mode market: ‘The Hitachi bi-mode trains can only go 110 mph when using diesel. Based on Aventra designs, we could build one that went 125 mph. This would help Network Rail as it would not have to electrify everywhere.’ He cites East Midlands, CrossCountry and Wales as potential users of this technology.

So Bombardier don’t think it is silly. Especially, the statement that Bombardier could build an Aventra that could do 125 mph running on diesel.

Applying, what we know about the power in the bi-mode Class 800 and Class 769 trains, which have three and two diesel power-packs respectively, I suspect that to create a five-car Aventra, that is capable of 125 mph on diesel, would need the following.

  • At least three diesel power-packs.
  • Regenerative braking using onboard energy storage.
  • Automatic pantograph deployment.
  • Automatic power source selection.

The light weight of the Aventra would be a big help.

It is my belief that energy storage is key, for the following reasons.

  • Stored energy from braking at a station from 125 mph, would be used to get the train back to operating speed, without using a large amount of diesel power.
  • Braking and acceleration back to operating speed, perhaps after being slowed by another train, might not need the diesel engines to be started.
  • Starting a journey with an optimum amount of power in the battery might make getting to operating speed easier.

It would be a rough engineering challenge, but one I believe is possible.

Consider the routes mentioned.

East Midlands

Consider.

  • 125 mph running would certainly be needed on this route.
  • Battery power could be used to boost the trains to 125 mph.
  • Electrification will be available between St. Pancras and Kettering.
  • Electrification might be impossible between Derby and Sheffield because the Derwent Valley is a World Heritage Site.

Some form of charging might be needed at Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield.

A bi-mode train would be ideal for Norwich to Liverpool, although there’s not a great deal of electrification.

Cross Country

CrossCountry use several electrified lines on their various routes..

  • York to Edinburgh
  • Birmingham New Street to Manchester Piccadilly
  • Bournemouth to Basingstoke
  • Stansted Airport to Ely

Note that parts of some of these routes allow125 mph and Bournemouth to asingstoke is electrified using third-rail.

A dual voltage, 125 mph bi-mode train would probably fit CrossCountry’s routes well.

Wales

Except for the South Wales Main Line, there’s little electrification in Wales, but a 125 mph bi-mode train could be used on the following several partially-electrified routes.

  • Carmarthen to Manchester Piccadilly.
  • Holyhead to Manchester Piccadilly
  • Holyhead to Liverpool via the Halton Curve.
  • Birmingham to Shrewsbury.
  • Swansea to Newport

Currently most of these services are served by 100 mph  Class 175 trains.  If nothing else, they would probably be more spacious, faster and fuel-efficient.

Conclusion

A five-car Aventra bi-mode is definitely not a silly idea.

It would be a sophisticated train with the following characteristics.

  • Electric drive
  • Regenerative braking.
  • 25 KVAC overhead and 750 VDC third rail capability.
  • Automatic pantograph deployment.
  • Onboard energy storage.
  • Automatic power source selection.
  • Diesel or hydrogen power-pack
  • 125 mph capability.

The first four are probably already in service in the Class 345 train.

.

August 21, 2017 Posted by | Transport/Travel | , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Construction Of The Platform Structures And Tracks For Crossrail At Abbey Wood Was Cimpleted By Network Rail In May 2017

The title of this post, was stated under a picture in the August 2017 Edition of Modern Railways.

The picture had been taken on site from the other side of the fence through the station to this picture I took in July 2017.

My later picture shows some of the canopies for the Crossrail platforms in position.

If Network Rail’s statement that formed the title of this post is correct, then is  the track layout to the East of the station complete?

This picture shows the unelectrified line leading away from the station.

Note the track without any electrification by the fence in the right foreground and the two third-rail electrified North Kent tracks in the left background.

This picture shows the track going towards Belvedere station.

Note the cross-over by the signal.

Can Crossrail Reverse All The Scheduled Trains At Abbey Wood?

Crossrail have now published a more detailed schedule for the services.

The schedule shows that a maximum of twelve trains need to be reversed at each of Abbey Wood, Paddington and Shenfield stations.

In this article on Rail Engineer, which is entitled Signalling Crossrail.

The Class 345 trains are fitted with a system called Auto-Reverse, which I explained in Crossrail Trains Will Have Auto-Reverse.

The driver selects auto-reverse and walks back through the train, as it changes platforms automatically. By the time the driver is in the other cab, the train is in position in the other platform, ready to go back to London.

But the article in Rail Engineer also says this.

Auto reverse (AR) is not provided on Network Rail infrastructure. There will also be the possibility to use AR into and out of the stabling sidings at Abbey Wood so the driver will be at the correct end of the train to finish a shift or, when coming on duty, to start a new run westwards. Service trains will, however, normally reverse in the station. AR may also be used at Custom House and anywhere using crossovers in the central section.

As the normal twelve trains per hour (tph) making up the service, will be using both platforms, cross-overs are provided to the West of Abbey Wood station, as is shown in this picture.

The system used at Abbey Wood will also be used at Shenfield.

Why Has The Reversing Siding Not Been Electrified?

In my view there can only be two explanations, if Modern Railways have got their picture caption right, which categorically said work was finished.

  • My reconnaissance was wrong.
  • Full electrification is not needed to reverse the trains.

On digging deeper, I took these four pictures at Abbey Wood station.

The pictures show in order.

  • The overhead wires for Platform 4 fixed to the station building. Look under the top of the staircase.
  • The overhead wires for Platform 3 passing under the station building.
  • The overhead wires for Platform 3 passing under the station building.
  • The overhead wires for Platform 3 anchored to a solid girder on the other side of the station building.

I couldn’t see the track layout because the wooden fence was in the way, but it would seem logical that the track through Platform 4 will eventually connect to the track through Platform 3.

This would allow the following.

  • Trains arriving in Platform 4 to transfer to Platform 3 using the reversing siding.
  • Crossrail trains to continue East on the North Kent Line using the single track and the crossovers to the East of the station.
  • A failed train could be pushed into the reversing siding, which could probably accommodate two trains.
  • Service and maintenance trains to access Crossrail’s Plumstead depot from the East.

But even if there is no connection, two independent platforms can handle the twelve trains per hour, as they will do at Shenfield.

 

July 29, 2017 Posted by | Transport/Travel | , , , | 1 Comment

Cardiff To Gloucester And Cheltenham In A Class 769 Train

As the time gets nearer for the entry of the Class 769 train into service at the end of the year, speculation is mounting about how the trains will be used.

In the August 2017 Edition of Modern Railways, there is an article, which is entitled Class 769s For Wales.

After discussing how the trains will be used to deputise for the current Class 150 trains so that they can be made compliant with the Persons of Reduced Mobility regulations, the article goes on to say this.

None of the electrical equipment will be removed from ‘769s’ destined for Wales. After completion of Great Western Electrification to Cardiff, they could operate electrically from Cardiff to Severn Tunnel Junction, where they would switch to diesel operation for the rest of the route to Gloucester and Cheltenham.

The fastest direct trains take one hour fifteen minutes for the journey, so a round trip could be a few minutes under three hours, so that an hourly service would need three trains.

 

July 27, 2017 Posted by | Transport/Travel | , , , | Leave a comment

TransPennine Electrification And Piccadilly Upgrade Now Also In Doubt

The title of this post is the same as this article in Rail Technology Magazine.

A Digression About The Next Generation Of Trains

After digging through the various pages on Hitachi’s web site, I wrote Do Class 800/801/802 Trains Use Batteries For Regenerative Braking?.

My conclusion was this.

I will be very surprised if Class 800/801/802 trains don’t have batteries.

Will the Class 385 trains for ScotRail have similar traction system?

But having thought about it more, I’m now convinced that by 2030, the average long distance train will have the following characteristics.

  • Ability to work from 25 KVAC overhead wires.
  • Ability if required to work from 750 VDC third rail.
  • Ability to raise and lower pantograph and switch beween modes at line speed.
  • Batteries to handle regenerative braking.
  • A generator unit to power the train.
  • A sophisticated control system to choose the appropriate power source and drive the train according to terrain, passenger load, weather and traffic.

The more I read about Hitachi’s Class 800, Class 801 and Class 802 trains, the more I’m convinced that the features I have listed, is their ultimate goal. I suspect too, that the suburban Class 385 train has the capability of meeting the same objectives.

I would be very surprised if Alstom, Bombardier, CAF, Siemens, Stadler and others are not thinking along the same lines, as this document from Hitachi entitled Development of Class 800/801 High-speed Rolling Stock for UK Intercity Express Programme has been freely available since 2014.

It contains this diagram of the traction system of a Class 800 train.

Note the generator unit and the battery charger.

I’ve ridden the new Class 345 trains for Crossrail, a few times and after a trip yesterday in the gold-standard train;a 1970s  British Rail Mark 3 coach, I can honestly say that the ride, noise and vibration in ombardier’s new train, is the best I’ve ridden.

So are Bombardier using a new traction system to achieve this smoothness? I suspect they are.

I also can’t find anything to say how a train will be removed from the tunnel under London, in the event of a complete power failure. No sane engineer would allow a rescue involving diesel or hydrogen in an emergency. However, batteries on the train with the capability of getting passengers to a safe disembarking point would be an obvious solution..

TransPennine Electrification

The major rail route across the Pennines between Leeds and Manchester is the Huddersfield Line.

The following stations are open on the route.

The stations marked with asterisks (*) have electrification or will do soon.

Note the following about the route.

  • Stalybridge to Leeds is under forty miles by road, so it could be even shorter by rail.
  • Huddersfield station is one of a select group of Grade I Listed railway stations..
  • Greater Manchester is developing a suburban electric network.
  • Greenfield is the last station in Greater Manchester towards Leeds.
  • Leeds is developing a suburban electric network.
  • Cottingley is the last station in Leeds towards Manchester.
  • Currently, trains from Manchester Piccadilly to Leeds can take a diferent route to Stalybridge, that is electrified as far as Guide Bridge station.
  • I counted four tunnels, including Standedge tunnel, and over twenty bridges between Stalybridge and Huddersfield.
  • Electrification of this section, would probably mean closure for at least a year.
  • Between Huddersfield and Leeds the electrification would be a lot easier with about fifteen bridges and  Morley tunnel.

My philosophy for this route would be as follows.

  1. Electrification would not go anywhere near Huddersfield, as the heritage lobby and their lawyers would have a field day.
  2. Standedge and Morley tunnels are over 2,000 metres long, double track and Standedge is level. If they needed refurbishment in the future, perhaps they could be electrified with an overhead rail, so that bi-modes could have a couple of miles of electricity.
  3. Electrification might be extended at the Manchester and Leeds ends of the line, so that the two cities could improve their local suburban electric networks.
  4. An alternative would be that the Leeds and Manchester suburban electric networks were provided with a few Class 769 trains or even some brand new four-car bi-modes.
  5. Services between Leeds and Manchester would be run by fast bi-modes.

TransPennine Express are already planning to run Class 802 trains between Liverpool and Newcastle via Manchester and Leeds. It looks to me, that whoever plans their train policy, saw this electrification crisis coming.

The money saved on the electrification would be spent on improving track and stations.

Currently the fastest journeys between Manchester and Leeds take just under fifty minutes.

What time could a Class 802 train achieve if the following were done.

  • Manchester to Stalybridge is fully electrified.
  • Some extra electrification was installed at Leeds.
  • The track is improved.

My money would be on thirty-five minutes.

Manchester Piccadilly Upgrade

I hate using the isolated island Platforms 13 and 14 at Manchester Piccadilly station.

They are just too crowded and the steps and escalators down to the platform aren’t well-designed.

The Frequency Of Trains Through Platforms 13/14

The two platforms can be considered equivalent to these busy two-platform stations.

All of these stations handle more trains than Plstforms 13./14 at Manchester Piccadilly.

Provided the signalling can handle it, it should be possible to schedule more trains through these two platforms.

One piece of information I viewed seemed to show that some services terminate in these two platforms. Surely, that is a way to reduce capacity.

Ordsall Chord And Class 769 Train Implications

The Ordsall Chord should change the pattern of trains, when it opens later this year.

The main implication will be that cross-city services can be developed.

The new Class 769 trains will help too, in that current diesel and electric services can be run using one type of train across the city.

A simple example would be Buxton to Blackburn.

These services release platform space in Manchester Piccadilly and other stations, which can be used for new services.

Access To Platforms 13/14

I’ve felt for some time, that if the access to the platform was better designed that a lot of the problems could be reduced.

I sometimes wonder, if when people see that their train is leaving from Platform 13 or 14, that they go there immediately and instead of waiting upstairs in the lounge, they descend to the platform.

When the Ordsall Chord is opened, because of the pattern of services passengers will sometimes change at one of the string of stations on the line.

Perhaps Oxford Road or Deansgate should be designated the preferred interchange station and fixed up with wider platforms, various kiosks and a waiting room to encourage passengers to change away from Piccadilly.

This Google Map shows Oxford Road station.

Oxford Road certainly seems to have space for passengers to use it as an exchange, when crossing the city.

But does Oxford Road have a stop on the Metrolink?

This Google Map shows Deansgate station.

 

Deansgate doesn’t seem to have the space of Oxford Road. But it does have a good connection to the Metrolink.

The Forgotten Salford Stations

The other stations that could help are the two forgotten Salford stations; Salford Crescent and Salford Central.

This Google Map shows Salford Crescent station.

I believe that this station is going to get more platforms. Could it become a sort of triage station, where passengers from the North of Greater Manchester changed for.

  • Trains for Manchester Victoria station.
  • Trains for Manchester Piccadilly station.
  • Metrolink to the city centre.

Surely, space could be found to run trams along Broad Street.

It would also look to be a station, where there is considerable scope to put housing or commercial developments above the station.

This Google Map shows Salford Central station.

With a bit of thinking Salford Central must have interchange possibilities.

But as with Salford Crescent, this station doesn’t have a Metrolink connection.

The Wikipedia entry for Salford Central has a section called Future Development. This is said.

A Network Rail report suggests building platforms on the line to Liverpool (via Newton-le-Willows), the lines of which run through the station but are not provided with platforms. This scheme has since been adopted by Transport for Greater Manchester and included in their Capital Works Programme for 2015–16 to 2020–21. This will see three additional platforms built, at a cost of £20.5 million and will allow Liverpool, Chester & Manchester Airport-bound trains (using the Ordsall Chord) to call here.

I’ll believe it when I see it.

Conclusion About Manchester Piccadilly Upgrade

I am inevitably drawn to the following conclusions about the upgrade to Manchester Piccadilly.

The Ordsall Chord and the new electric services offered by the bi-mode trains will create a duckers-and-divers network across Manchester City Centre.

The following should be done.

  • Access to Platforms 13/14 at Manchester Piccadilly should be greatly improved.
  • Deansgate, Oxford Road, Salford Central and Salford Crescent should be improved with extra platforms, same- and cross-platform interchange.
  • The Metrolink should be extended to both Salford stations.
  • Greater Manchester should adopt a ticketing system based on bank cards to encourage use of the transport network.

Perhaps Mancunians need to be taught to duck-and-dive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

July 26, 2017 Posted by | Transport/Travel | , , , , | 2 Comments

Electrifying Tunnels For Bi-Mode Trains

In TransPennine Electrification And Piccadilly Upgrade Now Also In Doubt, I came across two long tunnels, that would need to be wired, if the Huddersfield Line were to be electrified.

So here’s a list of long railway tunnels that aren’t electrified.

Note.

  1. Standedge and Morley are both on the Huddersfield Line.
  2. Totley, Disley and Cowburn are all on the Hope Valley Line.

Over the last few years, we have electrified or designed the electrification for several long tunnels including those for Crossrail and the Severn and Box Tunnels.

Consider.

  • Crossrail and the Severn Tunnel use a rail attached to the roof of the tunnel.
  • Overhead rail is becoming an increasingly common way to electrify a tunnel with 25 KVAC overhead.
  • Crossrail developed a specialist machine to install the brackets for the overhead rails.
  • Bi-mode trains like the Class 800, Class 755 and Class 769 train, have sophisticated GPS-controlled pantographs, that can go up and down automatically.
  • Bi-mode trains will increasingly have energy storage.
  • A train travelling at 160 kph (100 mph) will take forty-five seconds to pass through a 2,000 metres tunnel.
  • No-one is going to object to the visual intrusion of electrification in a tunnel.

As some of these long tunnels will need refurbishment in the next few years, would it be worthwhile to fit them with at least the mountings for an overhead rail during the refurbishment.

I wouldn’t think it would be unreasonable to have a four-car bi-mode train with energy storage that gave a range of perhaps fifteen miles.

I don’t think it is unreasonable to suspect that both Hitachi and Bombardier have such a train in the Design Office.

Suppose one was shuttling between Manchester Piccadilly and Sheffield along the Hope Valley Line.

  • The route is electrified from Piccadilly to Guide Bridge
  • The two tunnels; Totley and Cowburn are a total of 5.6 miles long.
  • Both tunnels are on a gradient, so electrification might speed up services.
  • If Totley were electrified, it would fully charge the train, as it passed through.

I am pretty certain, that if the tunnels were electrified, Manchester to Sheffield would have a fully electric route.

 

July 26, 2017 Posted by | Transport/Travel | , , | 2 Comments

Crossrail 2: City Mayors Criticise Government Backing

This is the headline on an article on the BBC.

This is the first three paragraphs.

Two city mayors have criticised the government’s decision to back Crossrail 2, days after it scrapped rail electrification plans in Wales, the Midlands and the north of England.
Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham said there would be “widespread anger” at the decision to back the railway line, which will run through London.
Liverpool City Region’s mayor said there needed to be “balanced spending”.

I can understand the anger, especially in Manchester, where the electrification is running a couple of years late.

The Picc-Vic Tunnel

Manchester was unlucky, in that of the three Northern tunnel projects of the seventies; Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle, the Picc-Vic tunnel was the one that was cancelled by Harold Wilson. Birmingham and London both got cross-city rail tunnels with the same name; Snow Hill.

Perhaps, Manchester should have renamed Piccadilly Gardens!

Liverpool’s tunnel of the same period has recently been rebuilt and Merseyrail have just ordered a new fleet of Stadler trains to improve and expand their commuter network.

Newcastle’s tunnel helped to create the Tyne and Wear Metro, which is in the process of ordering new trains and expanding.

What would have happened to Manchester, if British Rail’s plans had been allowed to proceed?

All Manchester got was the Metrolink, which compared to tram systems in Birmingham, Blackpool, Croydon, Edinburgh and Nottingham is rather second-rate, despite being the largest.

The Ordsall Chord

Let’s hope that the Ordsall Chord works as it says on the tin. Wikipedia says this about the chord’s operation.

The Ordsall Chord will provide a direct link between Piccadilly and Victoria stations, allowing trains from Manchester Victoria and the east to continue to Piccadilly. Following completion of the chord, four trains per hour will travel between Manchester Airport/Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Victoria in each direction, and associated reorganisation of train paths and retimetabling will provide eight trains per hour from Manchester Victoria towards the west via Chat Moss, and six trains per hour from Manchester Piccadilly towards either Chat Moss or Bolton and Preston (trains from both Victoria and Piccadilly stations to the west and north west (Chat Moss, Liverpool, Bolton, Preston, etc.) do not actually pass over the Ordsall Chord, both ends of which lead eastwards, but travel over pre-existing track).

But as British Rail said in the 1970s, surely a properly designed tunnel under Manchester with up to three stations in the City Centre  would have been better, than the Ordsall Chord.

But what’s done is done and anyway, if the Picc-Vic tunnel had been started in 2016, as was the Ordsall Chord, it probably wouldn’t have been finished until 2026.

Where Are The Trains?

Northern and TransPennine Express are renewing their train fleets, but Manchester’s new electrified lines will need new trains from the end of this year.

The elderly Class 319 trains have stepped up to the plate, like the troopers they have always been. They would have arrived earlier, had the new Class 700 trains arrived on time.

Where Is The Electrification?

The UK and not just the North, has a particular problem and that is, that a lot of our railway lines run through quality countryside, some of which is spectacular.

So imagine trying to electrify the following lines with overhead wires.

  • Manchester to Buxton
  • Ipswich to Lowestoft
  • Ashford to Hastings
  • Settle to Carlisle
  • Preston to Leeds via Hebden Bridge

The Heritage lobby and their lawyers would tie nNetwork Rail in knots for decades.

On a practical level, from the stories I’ve heard about the electrification of the Gospel Oak to Barking Line near where I live, there are myriad problems with installing electrification in this country.

A lot seems to be down to the fact that British Rail and their predecessors weren’t good at keeping records.

The Class 319 Flex Train

I was once told by an engineer who worked on the InterCity 125, of a mythical pub in Derby, where Rolls-Royce and British Rail engineers met to talk about their problems. Could it be that Derby-based Porterbrook and Northern have tapped this network and came up with the bi-mode Class 769 train, which is a modification to a Class 319 train and must surely be the ultimate manifestation of British Rail’s legendary Mark 3 coach.

But the Class 769 train has been well received, as other orders have been forthcoming.

Surely, the planners could see the demand for this one coming, so where is the four-car suburban bi-mode?

Northern have ordered eight of these bi-mode and it will be interesting to see how they are used.

If nothing else, the Class 769 train has already proved that there is a need for a quality four-car bi-mode train.

Bi-Mode Trains And Bottlenecks

I would assume that the Ordsall Chord has a modern signalling system and that the number of trains that could use the chord could be as high as sixteen trains per hour, which is the current capacity of the Thames Tunnel on the East London Line.

The chord may be able to handle all the trains, which would allow services on both sides of Manchester to be run Crossrail-style as back-to-back services.

As a simple example perhaps Manchester to Buxton and Manchester to Clitheroe could be combined into a Buxton to Clitheroe service run by Class 319 Flex trains, which uses electricity from Hazel Grove to Bolton and diesel engines to climb to the two end stations.

Routes like this will surely release much-needed platform space in Manchester Piccadilly station.

But the two island platforms at Manchester Piccadilly will be a bottleneck.

I can see this happening across the Pennines at other stations.

Bi-mode trains will provide the train capacity, but are the stations up to it?

The Long Term Solution

Class 769 trains are not a long term solution. In my view they are a superb development solution.

If we assume that electrification is ruled out for the near future, this will inevitably lead to more bi-mode trains.

Purists will say no, as they will want electrification and nothing less.

But then we have no experience of a modern bi-mode train.

The first bi-mode to come into service will probably be a Class 800 train built by Hitachi.

In Do Class 800/801/802 Trains Use Batteries For Regenerative Braking?, I answered the question I posed and I now believe that these trains can store energy.

So will the bi-mode of the future not be an electric train with an onboard diesel engine, but a sophisticated design, that can obtain its motive power from multiple sources, thus reducing noise, vibration and carbon footprint?

There are at least two other companies who will join this fight.

  • CAF have lots of orders with both Northern and TransPennine Express and they will not want to lose them. So I think it is reasonable to expect something radical from the Spanish company with a proven record in innovation.
  • Bombardier have designed the Aventra to have onboard energy storage and I would be very surprised if they haven’t thought about how to squeeze in a small diesel generator.

Will Alstom, Stadler and Siemens sit idly by, whilst other companies carve up the UK market? I doubt it.

The new bi-mode trains will provide the capacity, but other things must be done.

  • Stations must be improved to cater for the extra passengers.
  • Track and signalling must be improved to allow higher speeds.
  • As electrification was done on the cheap in the past, there are some lengths of electrification, that must be done.
  • HS2 must go on at full speed.
  • Ticketing must be made as easy as London and the South East.
  • Planning of a High Speed line across the North should be seriously started.

It will be interesting to see what develops.

Conclusion

I would spend the money on new trains, better stations and improving the passenger experience.

Electrification would come later, when there is a proven need.

But I wouldn’t rule out the train-makers creating a wholly different game.

 

July 25, 2017 Posted by | Transport/Travel | , , , | 4 Comments

Do Class 800/801/802 Trains Use Batteries For Regenerative Braking?

I ask this question, because I think that it could be key to the announcements about electrification yesterday, as reported  in this article in Global Rail News, which is entitled UK Ditches Electrification Plans In Wales, The Midlands And The North.

If you look at all these Wikipedia entries for Hitachi trains being built for the UK.

You will find no reference to regenerative braking.

If you type “Class 800 regenerative braking” into Google, you will find this document on the Hitachi Rail web site, which is entitled Development of Class 800/801 High-speed Rolling Stock for UK Intercity Express Programme.

The only mention of the R-word is in this paragraph.

An RGS-compliant integrated on-train data recorder (OTDR) and juridical recording unit (JRU), and an EN-compliant energy
meter to record energy consumption and regeneration are fitted to the train.

If you search for brake in the document, you find this paragraph.

In addition to the GU, other components installed under the floor of drive cars include the traction converter, fuel tank, fire protection system, and brake system.

Note that GU stands for generator unit.

Traction System

I will start by having a detailed look at the traction system as described in the document.

The document provides this schematic of the traction system.

Note BC which is described as battery charger.

This is said in the text.

The system can select the appropriate power source from either the main transformer or the GUs. Also, the size and weight of the system were minimized by designing the power supply converter to be able to work with both power sources. To ensure that the Class 800 and 801 are able to adapt to future changes in operating practices, they both have the same traction system and the rolling stock can be operated as either class by simply adding or removing GUs. On the Class 800, which is intended to run on both electrified and non-electrified track, each traction system has its own GU. On the other hand, the Class 801 is designed only for electrified lines and has one or two GUs depending on the length of the trainset (one GU for trainsets of five to nine cars, two GUs for trainsets of 10 to 12 cars). These GUs supply emergency traction power and auxiliary power in the event of a power outage on the catenary, and as an auxiliary power supply on non-electrified lines where the Class 801 is in service and pulled by a locomotive. This allows the Class 801 to operate on lines it would otherwise not be able to use and provides a backup in the event of a catenary power outage or other problem on the ground systems as well as non-electrified routes in loco-hauled mode.

This is all very comprehensive.

But nothing is said about how regenerative brake currents from the traction motors are handled.

Any trained Control Engineer, of which I’m a life-expired example, can see all sorts of questions to ask.

  • Could it be that all regenerative brake currents are fed into the Auxiliary Power Supply and then used for hotel power and to charge the battery?
  • Is the generator unit switched on and off by a sophisticated control system, that uses GPS, train velocity, train weight, battery level etc.?
  • Can battery power be used to move the train?
  • How big is that mysterious battery?

In 2010, I wrote Edinburgh to Inverness in the Cab of an HST, after taking a memorable trip.

One memory of that trip is of the skill of the driver as he adjusted the twin throttles of the power cars and used the brakes, as the train travelled up hill and down dale.

This line will be Class 800 territory and I suspect that it will be worked by two five car units working as a ten-car train.

As I think that each five-car unit will have three generator units, does this mean that the driver will have six throttles?

Control Engineering has moved on in the forty years since the InterCity 125 entered service and I suspect that like an Airline Pilot, the driver of a Class 800 train, will have little control about how power is delivered. Except probably in a supervisory role.

So on routes like the Highland Main Line, the Class 800 will come into its own, using the generator units and stored energy as appropriate.

Obviously, the less the generator unit is used the better, as this minimises noise and vibration, and cuts carbon emissions.

Other features in the train design have been disclosed.

All Class 801 Trains Have At Least One Generator Unit

All Class 801 trains have at least one GU (generator unit), so it can obviously provide hotel power and probably enough power to limp to the next station, in case of overhead line failure.

Third Rail Class 800/801 Trains Are Possible

The layout of the traction system surely makes a third rail  or even a dual-voltage version of the trains possible.

After all, their first cousin; the Class 395 train is a dual voltage train.

Locomotive Haulage Is Possible

As I said, the specification is comprehensive.

The document is also forthcoming in other areas.

Train Configuration

This is said.

Trains have a unit configuration of up to 12 cars, including the ability to add or remove standardised intermediate cars and the generator units (GUs)
(generators with diesel engines) needed to operate commercial services on non-electrified lines.

So if say GWR wanted an eleven-car train, it would be possible.

Automatic Coupling And Uncoupling

This is said.

Because the coupling or uncoupling of cars in a trainset occurs during commercial service at an intermediate station, the automatic coupling device is able to perform this operation in less than 2 minutes.

This is definitely in line with Class 395 train performance.

Automatic Train Identification Function

This is said.

To simplify the rearrangement and management of train configurations, functions are provided for identifying the train (Class 800/801), for automatically determining the cars in the trainset and its total length, and for coupling and uncoupling up to 12 cars in
normal and 24 cars in rescue or emergency mode.

I suspect most modern trains can do this.

One Twelve-Car Train Can Rescue Another

See the previous extract.

Flexible Interior Layout

This is said.

The rolling stock is designed to facilitate changes to the interior layout to accommodate changes to services or to the number of cars in the train.

I suspect that was expected.

An Interim Conclusion

In answer to the question, I posed with this post, I suspect that the answer is in the affirmative.

Extra Evidence

I also found this article on the Hitachi Rail web site, which is entitled Hybrid Propulsion with a sub-title of Energy-saving hybrid propulsion system using storage–battery technology.

This is the introductory paragraph.

As a step toward producing environmentally friendly propulsion systems, Hitachi has supplied a hybrid propulsion system that combines an engine generator, motor, and storage batteries. This system provides regenerative braking which has not been previously possible on conventional diesel-powered trains, and enables increased energy savings via regenerated energy.

They list the advantages as.

  1. 10% improvement of fuel consumption
  2. 60% reduction of the hazardous substances in engine exhaust
  3. 30db reduction of noise in stopping at the station

They also give various links that are worth reading.

All of these pages seem to have been published in 2013.

Conclusion

I will be very surprised if Class 800/801/802 trains don’t have batteries.

Looking at the schematic of the electrical system, the energy captured will at least be used for hotel power on the train.

Will the Class 385 trains for ScotRail have similar traction system?

 

July 21, 2017 Posted by | Energy Storage, Transport/Travel | , , , , | 22 Comments

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »