The Anonymous Widower

Bombardier Doesn’t Seem Too Disappointed On Missing Out On The Abellio East Midlands Railway Order

This article on the Derby Telegraph is entitled Derby’s Bombardier Misses Out On Big Contract To Supply Trains For The East Midlands.

This is two paragraphs from the article.

In a statement, Bombardier said: “Bombardier is clearly disappointed that we have not been selected to supply bi-mode trains for the East Midlands franchise.

“We believe we submitted a competitive bid – on technology, strength of product, deliverability and cost, and will seek formal feedback from Abellio.”

There certainly hasn’t been any published threat of legal action.

The Abellio East Midlands Railway Order From Hitachi.

The order placed was as follows.

Thirty-three five-car AT-300 trains.

  • 25 KVAC overhead electrification.
  • Four cars have underfloor diesel-engines.
  • 125 mph running.
  • 24 metre cars.
  • Ability to work in pairs.
  • Evolution of a Class 802 train.
  • A new nose.

It is a £400 million order.

No Trains For Corby

In How Will Abellio East Midlands Railway Maximise Capacity On The Midland Main Line?, I calculated that the current timetable to Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield would need thirty-two trains.

So thirty-three trains would only be enough trains for the bi-mode services to the three Northern termini.

So it looks like Hitachi are not providing any trains for the Corby services! Surely, to have a compatible fleet from one manufacturer would be of an advantage to Abellio East Midlands Railway.

An Ideal Fleet For Corby

Trains between London and Corby take around 70-75 minutes, with a round trip taking three hours.

This means that to run a one train per hour (tph) service to Corby needs three trains and a two tph service will need six trains.

As trains go wrong and also need servicing, I would add at least one spare train, but two is probably preferable.

It would have the following characteristics.

  • All electric.
  • 125 mph running, as they will need to keep out of the way of the Hitachi bi-modes.
  • 240 metres long.
  • A passenger-friendly interior, with loys of tables.
  • Energy efficient

If the last point s to be met, I and many other engineers believe that to save energy, trains must have regenerative braking to batteries on the train.

In Kinetic Energy Of A Five-Car Class 801 Train, I calculated that the kinetic energy of a Class 801 train, with every seat taken was 104.2 kWh

This calculation was performed for a half-length train, so a full electric train for London and Corby would have a kinetic energy of 208.4 kWh, if it was similar to one of Hitachi’s Class 801 train.

The reason the kinetic energy of a train is important, is teat if a train brakes from full speed and has batteries to handle the energy generated by regenerative braking, the batteries must be big enough to handle all the energy.

So a ten-car train similar in capacity and weight to a Class 801 train would need batteries capable of handling 208.4 kWh.

I’ll give a simple example.

A train similar to a Class 801, is full and running using electrification at 125 mph. It is approaching a station, where it will stop.

  • The train’s computer knows the mass and velocity of the train at all times and hence the kinetic energy can be calculated.
  • The train’s computer will constantly manage the train’s electricity supply, so that the batteries always have sufficient capacity to store any energy generated by braking.
  • As the train brakes, the energy generated will be stored in the batteries.
  • As the train moves away from the station, the train’s computer will use energy from the overhead electrification or batteries to accelerate the train.

Energy will constantly be recycled between the traction motors and the batteries.

I don’t know what battery capacity would be needed, but in my experience, perhaps between 300-400 kWh would be enough.

Any better figures, gratefully accepted.

When you consider that the battery in a Tesla car is around 60-70 kWh, I don’t think, there’ll be too much trouble putting enough battery power underneath a ten-car train.

Onward To Melton Mowbray

This page on the Department for Transport web site is an interactive map of the Abellio’s promises for East Midlands Railway.

These are mentioned for services to Oakham and Melton Mowbray.

  • After electrification of the Corby route there will continue to be direct service each way between London and Oakham and Melton Mowbray once each weekday, via Corby.
  • This will be operated with brand new 125mph trains when these are introduced from April 2022.

This seems to be a very acceptable minimum position.

Surely, in a real world driven by marketing and finance and more and more passengers wanting to travel regularly by train to places like London, Luton Airport and Leicester, there will come a time, when an hourly service on this route is needed.

Could a Corby service be extended to Melton Mowbray using battery power, at perhaps a slower speed of 90 mph?

Accelerating away from Corby, the train would need 108 kWh of energy to get to 90 mph with a full train.

  • There would be a continuation of the electrification for perhaps a couple of hundred metres after Corby station.
  • The train would probably leave Corby with a full battery, which would have been charged on the journey from London.

Once at cruising speed, the train would need energy to maintain line speed and provide hotel power.

In How Much Power Is Needed To Run A Train At 125 mph?, I calculated the figure for some high-speed trains.

This was my conclusion.

In future for the energy use of a train running at 125 mph, I shall use a figure of three kWh per vehicle mile.

So I will use that figure, although I suspect the real figure could be lower.

I will also assume.

  • Corby to Melton Mowbray is 26.8 miles.
  • It’s a ten-car train.
  • Regenerative braking is seventy percent efficient.
  • The train is running at 90 mph, between Cotby and Melton Mowbray, with an energy of 108 kWh

Energy use on a round trip between Corby and Melton Mowbray, would be as follows.

  • Accelerating at Corby – 108 kWh – Electrification
  • Stop at Oakham – 32.4 kWh – Battery
  • Corby to Melton Mowbray – 804 kWh – Battery
  • Stop at Melton Mowbray – 32.4 kWh – Battery
  • Stop at Oakham – 32.4 kWh – Battery
  • Melton Mowbray to Corby – 804 kWh – Battery

This gives a total of 1705.2 kWh

The battery energy need gets a lot more relaxed, if there is a charging station at Melton Mowbray, as the train will start the return journey with a full battery.

Energy use from Corby to Melton Mowbray would be as follows.

  • Accelerating at Corby – 108 kWh – Electrification
  • Stop at Oakham – 32.4 kWh – Battery
  • Corby to Melton Mowbray – 804 kWh – Battery

This gives a total of 836.4 kWh.

Energy use from Melton Mowbray to Corby would be as follows.

  • Accelerating at Melton Mowbray- 108 kWh – Battery
  • Stop at Oakham – 32.4 kWh – Battery
  • Melton Mowbray to Corby – 804 kWh – Battery

This gives a total of 944.4 kWh.

The intriguing fact, is that if you needed a train to go out and back from Corby to Melton Mowbray, it needs a battery twice the size of one needed, if you can charge the train at Melton Mowbray., during the stop of several minutes.

Charging The Train

This page on the Furrer and Frey web site, shows a charging station..

It might also be possible to erect a short length of 25 KVAC overhead electrification. This would also help in accelerating the train to line speed.

This Google Map shows Melton Mowbray station.

It looks to be a station on a large site with more than adequate car parking and I suspect building a bay platform with charging facilities would not be the most difficult of projects.

More Efficient Trains

I also think that with good design electricity use can be reduced from my figure of 3 kWh per vehicle mile and the regenerative braking efficiency can be increased.

Obviously, the more efficient the train, the greater the range for a given size of battery.

Onward To Leicester

If the train service can be extended  by the 26.8 miles between Corby and Melton Mowbray, I wonder if the electric service can be extended to Leicester.

Under current plans the Northern end of the electrification will be Market Harborough.

In Market Harborough Station – 11th July 2019, I wrote about the station after a visit. In my visit, I notices there were a lot of croaaovers to the North of the station.

As it was a new track alignment, I suspect that they were new.

So is it the interntion to turnback services at Market Harborough or are the crossovers preparation for links to stabling sidings?

It got me asking if battery-electric trains could reach Leicester.

  • Leicester and Market Harborough are only fourteen miles apart.
  • There are no stops in between.
  • Using my three kwH per vehicle mile, this would mean that a ten car train would use 420 kWh between the two stations at 125 mph.

I certainly believe that a Northbound train passing Market Harborough with fully-charged batteries could reach Leicester, if it had an adequate battery of perhaps 700 kWh.

As at Melton Mowbray, there would probably need to be a charging station at Leicester.

The picture shows the station from the Northern bridge.

The platforms shown are the two main lines used by most trains. On the outside are two further lines and one or both could be fitted with a charging station, if that were necessary.

An Example Electric Service Between London And Leicester

If they so wanted, Abellio East Midlands Railway could run 125 mph battery-electric services between London and Leicester.

The Current Timings

The fastest rains go North in around 66-67 minutes and come South in seventy.

So a round trip would take around two and a half hours.

Five trains would be needed for a half-hourly service.

I feel it would be very feasible, if Abellio East Midlands Railway wanted to increase services between London and Leicester, then this could be done with a fleet of zero-carbon battery-electric trains, using battery power between Leicester and Market Harborough.

A Non-Stop London And Leicester Service

I wonder what would be the possible time for an electric express running non-stop between London and Leicester.

  • Currently, some diesel Class 222 trains are timetabled to achieve sixty-two minutes.
  • Linespeed would be 125 mph for much of the route.
  • There is no reason, why the fourteen mile section without electrification North of Market Harborough couldn’t be run at 1235 mph on battery-power, once the track is upgraded to that speed.
  • iIn the future, modern digital signalling, as used by Thameslink, could be applied to the whole route and higher speeds of up to 140 mph may be possible.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see a battery-electric train travelling between London and Leicester in fifty minutes before 2030.

A fifty-minute service would result in a two-hour round trip and need just two trains for a frequency of two tph.

It would surely be a marketing man’s dream.

It should be noted that Abellio has form in this area and have introduced Norwich-in-Ninrty services on the slower London and Norwich route.

London And Leicester Via Corby, Oakham And Melton Mowbray

I have been very conservative in my calculations of battery size.

With real data on the terrain, the track profile, the train energy consumption, regenerative braking performance and the passengers, I do wonder, if it would be possible to run on battery power between Corby and Leicester via Oakham and Melton Mowbray.

  • The distance would be 62 miles on battery power.
  • Trains could serve Syston station.
  • Using times of current services London and Leicester would take two hours fifteen minutes.

I suspect it would be possible, but it would be a slow service.

Would These Services Be An Application For Bombardier’s 125 mph Bi-Mode Aventra With Batteries?

Could Bombardier’s relaxed reaction to not getting the main order, be because they are going to be building some of their proposed 125 mph bi-mode trains with batteries, that will be able to work the following routes?

  • London and Melton Mowbray via Corby and Oakham.
  • London and Leicester via Market Harborough.

But I think that the main emphasis could be on a non-stop high-speed service between London and Leicester.

I have been suspicious that there is more to Bombardier’s proposed train than they have disclosed and wrote Is Bombardier’s 125 mph Bi-Mode Aventra With Batteries, A 125 mph Battery-Electric Aventra With Added Diesel Power To Extend The Range?

Since I wrote that article, my view that Bombardier’s train is a battery-electric one, with diesel power to extend the range, has hardened.

These Midland Main Line trains will run in two separate modes.

  • On the Southern electrified sections, the trains will be 125 mph electric trains using batteries for regenerative braking, energy efficiency and emergency power in the case of overhead line failure..
  • On the Northern sections without electrification,the trains will be battery-electric trains running at the maximum line-speed possible, which will be 125 mph on Leicester services.

There will be an optimum battery size, which will give the train the required performance.

Is there any need for any diesel engines?

Quite frankly! No! As why would you lug something around that you only need for charging the batteries and perhaps overhead supply failure?

  • Batteries would only need to be charged at the Northern end of the routes. So use a chasrging station, if one is needed!
  • Batteries can handle overhead supply failure, automatically.

Who needs bi-modes?

How Big Would The Batteries Need To Be?

A full train would have a kinetic energy of around 200 kWh and I said this about battery capacity for handling the energy from regenerastive braking.

I don’t know what battery capacity would be needed, but in my experience, perhaps between 300-400 kWh would be enough.

Any better figures, gratefully accepted.

To handle Corby to Melton Mowbray and back, I estimated that 1,800 kWh would be needed, but if the train had a top-up at Melton Mowbray a capacity of 1,000 kWh would be sufficient.

Pushed, I would say, that a battery capacity of 2,000 kWh would be sufficient to run both routes without a charging station, at the Northern end.

I also believe the following will happen.

  • Trains will get more efficient and leighter in weight.
  • Batteries will increase their energy density.
  • Charging stations will charge trains faster.
  • Battery costs will fall.

This would mean that larger battery capacities can be achieved without the current weight and cost penalty and the achievable range after the end of the wires will increase.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see ranges of over fifty miles in a few years, which with a charging station at the destination, means battery-electric trains could venture fifty miles from an electrified line.

A few other suggested routes.

  • Ashford and Southampton
  • Birmingham and Stansted Airport
  • Carliswle and Newcastle
  • Doncaster and Peterborough via Lincoln (CS)
  • Edinburgh and Tweedbank (CS)
  • London Euston and Chester
  • London St. Pancras and Hastings
  • London Waterloo and Salisbury (CS)
  • Manchester and Sheffield (CS)
  • Norwich and Nottingham (CS)
  • York and Hull via Scarborough (CS)

Note.

  1. Stations marked (CS) would need a charging station.
  2. Some routes would only need 100 mph trains.

I think that a 125 mph battery train will have a big future.

Conclusion

I have a feeling that Bombardier are right to be not too disappointed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

« Previous | Next »

August 1, 2019 Posted by | Transport | , , , , | Leave a comment

Tender Set To Be Issued For East West Rail Rolling Stock

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

Brief details of the fleet include.

  • Eleven trains.
  • Self-propelled.
  • Three cars.

Services are due to commence in 2024, serving Oxford, Aylesbury, Milton Keynes and Bedford.

Here are a few of my thoughts.

Are Three Car Trains Long Enough?

New train services in the UK, especially those on new or reopened routes, seem to suffer from London Overground Syndrome.

I define it as follows.

This benign disease, which is probably a modern version of the Victorian railway mania, was first identified in East London in 2011, when it was found that the newly-refurbished East London Line and North London Line were inadequate due to high passenger satisfaction and much increased usage. It has now spread across other parts of the capital, despite various eradication programs.

The Borders Railway certainly suffered and the London Overground is still adding extra services on the original routes.

Three-car trains may be enough for the initial service, but provision must be made  for running longer trains.

  • The trains that are purchased must be capable of lengthening.
  • Platforms must be built for longer trains.

So often we don’t future-proof new rail routes.

What Performance Is Needed?

I’ll ask this question first, as it may affect the choice of train.

The trains will certainly be at least capable of 100 mph operation.

But I wouldn’t be surprised if they were capable of 110 mph or even 125 mph, as this would surely make it easier for trains to go walkabout on the Great Western, Midland and West Coast Main Lines.

Faster East West trains might also get more services out of the fleet.

Appropriate acceleration and braking would be needed.

Conservative Or Innovative?

Will we get more of the same or will some of the responders to the tender offer trains based on innovative designs?

I would hope that as the line will eventually connect Oxford and Cambridge via Milton Keynes, the trains will take over the flavour of the route and be more innovative.

The Route

The eventual full route of the East West Rail Link will serve these sections.

  • Reading and Ocford – 25 miles – Partially-electrified
  • Oxford and Milton Keynes – 43 miles – Not electrified
  • Milton Keynes and Bedford – 20 miles – Partially-electrified
  • Bedford and Sandy – 10 miles – Not electrified
  • Sandy and Cambridge – 25 miles – Partially-electrified.

Note.

  1. The distances are approximate.
  2. With the exception of Oxford, all the major stations will be served by electric trains on other routes.

It is rather a mixture created out of existing and abandoned routes.

Could Battery Trains Run On The East West Rail Link?

Consider.

  • All the major stations except Oxford have electrification.
  • Sections of the route are electrified.
  • The route is not very challenging.
  • The longest section without electrification is around forty miles.

All this leads me to believe that a battery-electric train with a range of forty miles could handle the route, if there was the means to charge the train at Oxford.

Possibly the easiest way to achieve the charging station at Oxford station, would be to electrify between Didcot Junction and Oxford stations.

In How Much Power Is Needed To Run A Train At 125 mph?, I showed that to run at 125 mph, a train needs around three kWh per vehicle mile.

This would mean that to run between Oxford and Milron Keynes stations, would need a maximum power of around 40*3*3 kWh or 360 kWh.

This is only a 120 kWh battery in each car.

I am fairly certain, that a well-designed battery train could run on the East West Rail Link.

The Usual Suspects

There are several train companies, who could be offering existing trains or their developments.

Alstom

Alstom don’t have a current design of train for the UK, but they are heavily into the development of trains powered by hydrogen.

By 2024, I suspect they will be offering a purpose-built hydrogen-powered train for the UK.

Also, by that time, I think it will be likely, that many buses in cities will be powered by zero-carbon hydrogen and the availability of this fuel would be much better than it is today.

An East West Rail Link running hydrogen-powered trains would go a long way to answer the electrification lobby.

Bombardier

Bombardier are developing a 125 mph bi-mode Aventra with batteries, that they are proposing for various franchises in the UK, including the Midland Main Line.

I believe that by rearranging the components of this train, they could develop a train that would be very suitable for the East West Rail Link.

  • Three cars
  • At least 100 mph operating speed
  • In service by 2024 or earlier.

It could be a bi-mode train with batteries, or if battery and the associated charging technology has improved, it could be a battery-electric train.

The latter would certainly fulfil the flavour of the route.

Bombardier’s Aventra would also have the advantages of an electrical version and the ability to add more cars.

CAF

CAF have recently introduced the Class 195 traincaf in the UK.

But would a diesel train be acceptable on a flagship route?

On the other hand CAF have been delivering battery-powered trams for several years and I wouldn’t be surprised to see the company, offer an innovative battery-electric train for the East West Rail Link.

Hitachi

Hitachi don’t make self-powered trains in the UK.

But in Hitachi Plans To Run ScotRail Class 385 EMUs Beyond The Wires, I wrote about the company’s plans to use batteries as range extenders on their Class 385 trains.

I suspect that by 2024, these trains will be running in Scotland and they will probably be high-quality reliable trains.

So could these trains be able to run between Reading and Cambridge using battery power, topped up at the various sections of electrification along the route.

Hitachi’s development regime is cautious, professional and well-funded, so I suspect they could offer a version of the Class 385 train, for delivery in 2024.

Hitachi would also have the advantages of an electrical version and the ability to add more cars.

Siemens

Siemens have a large number of modern electrical multiple units in the UK, but none are self-powered, except the diesel Class 185 train.

Siemens will have a factory in the UK to built London Underground trains by 2024.

But eleven trains could be an expensive order to fulfil, if it required a new self-powered train design.

Stadler

Stadler are an innovative company and their Class 755 train will shortly be starting passenger service in East Anglia.

  • It is three-cars, which is extendable if required.
  • It has a 100 mph operating speed.
  • It is a bi-mode; diesel and electric train.
  • Trains for Wales have ordered a diesel/electric/battery version.
  • There are rumours of hydrogen-powered versions.

Stadler could certainly deliver some of these trains by 2024.

Summing Up

I would suspect that the front runners are Bombardier, Hitachi and Stadler, with CAF in fourth place.

  • All could probably develop a zero-emission train for the route using battery technology.
  • Stadler will have trains in service this year, and I suspect Bombardier and Hitachi will be running trains by 2022.

I think we could be seeing some very good trains on the route.

 

 

 

 

July 13, 2019 Posted by | Transport | , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Is Bombardier’s 125 mph Bi-Mode Aventra With Batteries, A 125 mph Battery-Electric Aventra With Added Diesel Power To Extend The Range?

The LEVC TX taxi is described in Wikipedia as a plug-in hybrid range-extender electric vehicle.

Could Bombardier’s 125 mph Bi-mode Aventra with batteries, be an equivalent rail vehicle?

I will start with the Class 720 train for Greater Anglia, which is probably the nearest train to a 125 mph Aventra in production.

  • It is formed of ten-cars.
  • It is 243 metres long.
  • It can accommodate 1,100 seated and 290 standing passengers.
  • It has a 100 mph operating speed, although this article on the East Anglian Daily Times, says it will be tested at up to 110 mph.

I will use this information to make some assumptions about Bombardier’s proposed 125 mph bi-mode Aventra with batteries.

Weight Of A Ten-Car Class 720 Train

In The Formation Of A Class 710 Train, I give the weight and length of a four-car Class 710 train as the following.

  • Weight – 157.8 tonnes
  • Length – 82.88 metres

Adjusting this weight to the 243 metres length of a ten-car Class 720 train, gives a weight of 462.7 tonnes.

This is the best I can do for the moment.

Kinetic Energy Of A Train At 125 mph

This is my calculation.

  • The empty weight of the train is 462.7 tonnes
  • To that must be added 1390 passengers, who average out at 90 Kg each with baggage, bikes and buggies. This is 125.1 tonnes.
  • This gives a total train weight of 587.8 tonnes.
  • Using Omni’s Kinetic Energy Calculator, gives a kinetic energy of 255 kWh at 125 mph.

For those of you, who feel I am a bit cavalier over the use of mass and weight, I agree with you, but many reading this won’t know the difference.

Handling Regenerative Braking

Imagine a train stopping from 125 mph at a station.

  • Looking at the roof of a Class 345 train, they don’t have any resistor banks, so energy must be stored on the train or returned through the electrification. Are all Aventras the same? See Class 710 Train Rooves At Blackhorse Road Station.
  • The batteries must be able to handle all the energy generated by the traction motors in their braking mode.
  • So they must be able to handle the 255 kWh of a train running at 125 mph.

It would probably mean energy storage over 300 kWh.

Some Aventras Are Two Half Trains

In A Detailed Layout Drawing For A Class 345 Train, I give the formation of a nine-car Class 345 train as.

DMS+PMS+MS1+MS3+TS(W)+MS3+MS2+PMS+DMS

Note.

  1. Eight cars have motors and only one doesn’t.
  2. The train is composed of two identical half-trains, which are separated by the TS(W) car.
  3. There are four wheelchair spaces in the TS(W) car.

In 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. The intention is that every car will be powered although trailer cars will be available.

Unlike today’s commuter trains, AVENTRA will also shut down fully at night. It will be ‘woken up’ by remote control before the driver arrives for the first shift

This was published over seven years ago, so I suspect Bombardier have refined the concept.

The extract talks about pairs of cars, which share the main electrical components.

So in the Class 345 train and possibly the ten-car Class 720 trains, are the DMS and PMS cars at the ends of the train, these pairs of cars?

I like the half-train concept, as I suspect a clever computer system on the train can reconfigure the train, if say a pantograph or other major component fails.

Distributing The Energy Storage

I feel that the best philosophy would be to distribute the batteries and/or supercapacitors through the train.

Energy storage of somewhere between thirty and sixty kWh in each car would probably be more than sufficient to handle the braking energy by a wide margin.

As typically, hybrid buses like London’s New Routemaster have batteries of about 60 kWh, I’m fairly certain a big enough battery could be placed under each car.

My Electrical and Control Engineering experience also suggests that if most axles are powered on the train, distributing the energy storage could mean shorter and more efficient cabling and electricity flows.

Could the train be a formation of more independent cars each with their own computer systems, connected by the common power bus mentioned in the earlier extract and a high-capacity computer network.

How Much Power Would A Train Need In The 125 mph Cruise?

I investigated this question in How Much Power Is Needed To Run A Train At 125 mph? and came to the conclusion, that 3 kWh per vehicle mile is a sensible figure.

I also feel that as the three kWh per vehicle mile relates mainly to an InterCity 125, that Bombardier could do better with a modern train.

Consider.

  • Derby and Leicester are thirty miles apart.
  • A journey takes twenty minutes.
  • A train is running non-stop between the two stations at 125 mph.

Using the train consumption figure of three kWh per vehicle mile, means that a ten-car train would need 900 kWh.

The required power would need to be supplied at a rate of 2,700 kW.

This means one of the following.

  1. The train has an enormous on-board power-unit.
  2. The train has an enormous battery.
  3. The train has a very high aerodynamic and electrical efficiency.

Or it could be a figment of Bombardier’s imagination.

Only the Option 3 is feasible.

Consider.

  • Bombardier also build aircraft and must have some aerodynamicists, wind tunnels and other facilities of the highest class.
  • Aventras seem to have very clean lines.
  • Aventras are very quiet trains inside and outside.
  • Bombardier claim that the trains have intelligent air-conditioning and lighting.
  • Class 710 trains have an average car weight, which is seven percent lighter than Class 378 trains.

It is also known that Bombardier have had a lot of trouble programming the advanced Train Control and Management System (TCMS). I believe that this could be because it is very sophisticated and getting it right took longer than expected.

I say this because the specification for the first version of Artemis was challenging to program as so much was first-of-its-type software. It was late, but once correct, it became an amazing world-wide success.

Is the Aventra another game-changing project?

There are all sorts of ways, that a sophisticated TCMS, can save electricity on a train.

  • Ultra smooth acceleration and braking.
  • Intelligent power management.
  • Precise control of all train systems, like heating, air-conditioning and lighting, according to ambient conditions and passenger loading.
  • GPS or ERTMS-controlled Driver Assistance Systems.

Couple this with lightweight structures, innovative design and world-class aerodynamics and could the train have an electrical usage as low as one kWh per vehicle mile?

This would mean a train between Derby and Leicester would consume 300 kWh, at a rate of 900 kW for twenty minutes.

Have Bombardier read about the design of the Douglas Skyhawk?

Wikipedia says this about the design and development of the aircraft.

The Skyhawk was designed by Douglas Aircraft’s Ed Heinemann in response to a U.S. Navy call for a jet-powered attack aircraft to replace the older Douglas AD Skyraider (later redesignated A-1 Skyraider). Heinemann opted for a design that would minimize its size, weight, and complexity. The result was an aircraft that weighed only half of the Navy’s weight specification. It had a wing so compact that it did not need to be folded for carrier stowage. The first 500 production examples cost an average of $860,000 each, less than the Navy’s one million dollar maximum.

I remember reading how Heinemann was ruthless on saving weight and complexity to get a more capable aircraft.

Every improvement in efficiency means you need less power to power the train, which in a multi-mode train, means one or more of the following.

  • Physically-smaller diesel engines and fuel tanks.
  • Smaller hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen tanks.
  • Smaller onboard energy storage.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see some radical weight-saving developments in the traction system. Lightweight diesel engines, energy storage and other large electrical components are all possibilities.

This all may seem pie-in-the-sky thinking, but a similar control revolution happened at Rollls-Royce with the RB 211 engine, when around 1990, full authority digital engine control or FADEC was developed

Is another company, with its designers and researchers in Derby going down the same route? Or do they all drink in the same pub?

Rolls-Royce certainly appear to have been successful, with their large aero engines.

I stated earlier that an energy use of one kWh per vehicle mile, would mean a train between Derby and Leicester would consume 300 kWh, at a rate of 900 kW.

Here’s a complete set of figures for a ten-car train.

  • 4 – 1200 kWh – 3,600 kW
  • 3 – 900 kWh – 2,700 kW
  • 2 – 600 kWh – 1800 kW
  • 1 – 300 kWh – 900 kW
  • 0.5 – 150 kWh – 450 kW

The second figure is the energy needed by the train between Derby and Leicester and the third is the rate, it would need to be supplied for a twenty-minute schedule.

Note how, that as the train gets more efficient and needs less power per vehicle mile, the rate of supplying energy to the train gets dramatically less.

Supplying 3,600 kW from electrification would be easy and trains like the Class 390 train are designed to take 5,000 kW to maintain 125 mph. But supplying that energy from on-board diesels or batteries would durely require enormous, heavy components.

Could 125 mph Be Sustained By Diesel Engines?

Bombardier have said, that their proposed High-Speed Bi-Mode Acentra with batteries will have the following characteristics.

  • Ability to run at 125 mph on both electricity and diesel.
  • A flat floor
  • A class-leading passenger environment.

The last two points are the difficult ones, as it means that engines must be smaller.

  • Smaller engines make a flat floor, which is so good for less-mobile passengers, buggy pushers or case-pullers, much easier to design.
  • Smaller engines make much less noise and vibration.

But surely, small engines wouldn’t provide enough power to drive the train at 125 mph.

CAF’s new Class 195 train has a Rolls-Royce MTU 6H1800R85L engine, which is rated at 390 kW in each car. These engines aren’t that noisy and fit neatly under the train floor. But disappointingly, they drive the train, through a noisy ZF Ecolife mechanical transmission.

Dimensions and weight of this engine are as follows.

  • Length – : 2.6-4 metres
  • Width – 2.1- 2.8 metres
  • Height – 0.8 metres
  • Dry Weight – 2.9-4.0 tonnes
  • Wet Weight – 3.0-4.2 tonnes

If engines like this were packaged properly with an alternator to generate electricity, I believe it would be possible to put enough power under the floor of a ten-car train.

  • The train is 240 metres long.
  • It will probably be two half trains, so it could be easy to fit two engines in each half train.
  • One engine could be under the driving cab and the other in the best place for balance.

I’m sure Rolls-Royce MTU could oblige.

They have a 12V1600R80LP PowerPack, described in this datasheet on the MTU web site.

  • It has a 700 kW output.
  • It is built for diesel-electric operation.
  • It is slightly larger than the engine in the Class 195 train.

Could one of these engines be put under each driving car?

Calculating backwards would mean that the train would need an energy use of 1.55 kWh per vehicle mile.

I believe that by good design, this is a very attainable figure.

As in London’s New Routemaster bus, the engines would top up the batteries on the train, which would then power the traction motors and the other train systems.

The TCMS would control everything.

  • Use an appropriate number of engines in every phase of the trip.
  • Raise and lower the pantograph without driver action.
  • Use battery power if required to boost diesel power.
  • Even out engine use, so that wear was equalised.

I’m led to the conclusion, that with power of about 1,400 kW from two modern underfloor diesel engines, a high-speed bi-mode Aventra with batteries can cruise at 125 mph.

Kinetic Energy Implications

If I modify the kinetic energy calculation to add ten tonnes for the diesel engines, the kinetic energy goes up to 259 kWh.

This may seem surprising, but the kinetic energy calculation is dominated by the square of the speed of the train.

If the engines at ten tonnes each, that only increases the train’s kinetic energy to 264 kWh.

One of the arguments against bi-mode trains, is that they are carrying heavy diesel engines around, that are doing nothing most of the time.

Whe  the train is accelerating to operating speed, some extra kWhs will be expended, but once in the cruise, they enjoy a free ride.

Stopping At A Station

As I said earlier, when the train is running at 125 mph, it has an energy of 255 kWh.

With the two added diesel engines, this could be a bit higher and perhaps up to 264 kWh.

This energy would be used to recharge the onboard storage at a station stop.

The TCMS would probably ensure that, when the train came to a full stop, the onboard storage was as full as possible.

In a five-minute stop, running the two diesel engines could add 116 kWh to the batteries, but I suspect an automatic charging system could be better.

Accelerating From A Station

Diesel power would probably not be enough working alone, but the energy in the onboard storage would also be used to accelerate the train to the 125 mph cruise.

Optimal Station Stops

The Class 720 trains on Greater Anglia will be sharing tracks and platforms on the Great Eastern Main Line with Class 745 and Class 755 trains from Stadler.  It has been stated by Greater Anglia, that the Stadler trains will provide level access between platform and train and will use gap fillers to improve the operation.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Class 720 trains providing level access on Greater Anglia, where most of the platforms seem to be fairly straight.

Level access is important, as it speeds up station calls by easing entry to and exit from the train.

Most of the stations on the Midland Main Line appear to be fairly straight. The exception was Market Harborough station, which has now been rebuilt with step-free access and straighter platforms.

I would think it extremely likely, that whatever bi-mode trains run the Midland Main Line in the future, they will save time on the current service, by executing very fast station stops.

I would expect that maximum stop time at the stations will be of the order of two minutes.

This time may not be long enough for a train to connect to a charger and take on more power for the batteries.

Conclusion

The TCMS and the way it manages all the energy on the train, is key to creating a successful 125 mph bi-mode Aventra with batteries.

It would appear that the diesel engines can be used as required to charge the batteries.

So it perhaps might be best to consider the train to be a battery one, with diesel engines.

As a Control Engineer, I’m proud of what Bombardier are doing.

But the aviation industry was doing this thirty years ago, so it has probably been a long time coming.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

July 9, 2019 Posted by | Transport | , , , , | 1 Comment

Roger Ford On Bombardier’s Aventra Problems

It has been well-publicised that Bombardier are having problems getting their new Class 710 trains working reliably for service on the Gospel Oak to Barking Lines.

In the February 2019 Edition of Modern Railways, there is an article written by the well-respected Roger Ford, which is entitled Train Makers Face ‘Year Of Truth’.

Roger makes a succession of important points about Bombardier and Aventras in particular.

Class 345 Trains

Roger says this.

While reliability continues to be poor, software issues have been largely down to signalling interfaces at the western end of Crossrail.

Production appears to have been paused at 57, with perhaps 37 accepted.

Class 345 Trains And Class 710 Trains Use Different Software

Roger says this.

For the Class 345s, Transport for London specified an evolution of the Class 378 ‘last generation’ software. However the units for London Overground and Greater Anglia, and the other Aventra contracts for delivery beyond 2019, are true next generation trains with a new ‘family tree’ of software.

So it would appear that Class 345 and Class 710 software problems could be unrelated!

My experience of putting together large complicated software systems over forty years, leads me to add these two statements.

  • If the base hardware has been thoroughly tested and put together in a professional manner, it will be very rare for the software to not work on one set of hardware and work perfectly on several dozen other sets.
  • You can’t do too much testing; both of the hardware and the software, both on test systems and in real-life scenarios.

I don’t know anything of the computer hardware structure and its connectivity on Aventras, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot has been lifted straight out of the aerospace industry, in which Bombardier has a substantial presence. Borrowing proven techniques and hardware will hopefully reduce the risk.

The major risk will be the software that is totally new and unique to the Aventra.

So to me, it is not surprising that the complicated signalling on Crossrail, has been the major trouble on the Class 345 trains.

In this article on Rail Magazine, which is entitled Gospel Oak-Barking Fleet Plan Remains Unclear, this is a paragraph.

London Overground was due to put new Bombardier Class 710 electric multiple units into traffic on the route from March 2018, with a full rollout by May. However, problems with the Train Control Management System (TCMS) has so far prevented this.

I suspect that the TCMS is totally new and unique and has a level of complexity much higher than what is used in the Class 345 train.

  • It will have the ability to test all the trains sub-systems on a continuous basis.
  • The TCMS  will be an important part of the train testing process, which is why I have listed it first.
  • The TCMS will control 25 KVAC overhead and 750 VDC third rail power collection.
  • It will control the energy storage, that is reputedly fitted to the train.
  • It will handle regenerative braking using the energy storage.
  • Electricity usage will be optimised.
  • It will control all the displays and systems throughout the train.
  • It will interface to the signalling system.
  • It will communicate train status and faults back to the depot.

I also suspect that every Aventra will have the same TCMS, which will probably be compatible with the proposed 125 mph bi-mode Aventra.

This is not a new concept, as in the 1980s, Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft had identical cockpits, flight control systems and a common rating for pilots.

The Aventra has been described as a computer-on-wheels. Could it also be described as an aircraft-on-rails?

When I was growing up, all new trains, aircraft and vehicles were generally fully described with detailed cutaway drawing in a comic called Eagle.

Bombardier have seemed to be very reluctant to give details about what lies under the skin of an Aventra. Could it be very different to all other trains?

There is one big disadvantage about having a common TCMS, in that, it requires a very high quality of software design, programming and testing and that any lateness in the software delays the whole project.

Class 710 Trains For The Gospel Oak To Barking

Roger says this about the delayed Class 710 trains for the Gospel Oak to Barking Line.

According to,Bombardier, delivery of the Class 710 fleet is now due to be completed by the end of 2019. Given that the original date was September 2018, this is 15 months late. But with large numbers of Class 710 vehicles in storage, it also seems unduly pessimistic.

Roger does not have a reputation for looking on the bright side of life, so when he says that the schedule is unduly pessimistic, I give that a high chance of being right.

Surely, when the final approved version of the TCMS software is delivered, all of those trains in storage can be woken up, tested by the TCMS software then go through a pre-delivery check with the appropriate level of trouble-free running.

It’s a bit like having a new PC on your desk. You can’t really use it, until the software you need to do your job is installed. But as the software will be designed for your PC and has already been fully tested, it is unlikely to be a traumatic operation.

It appears to me, that the more comprehensive the TCMS software, the quicker it will be to take a train from manufacture to ready for service.

Class 720 Trains For Greater Anglia

Bombardier are already building the Class 720 trains for Greater Anglia.

Are these just being checked and tested before being put into store?

As with the Class 710 trains, will they be woken up using the same final fully tested version of the TCMS software?

I would be very surprised if the software on the two trains used different versions of the software.

When I was writing Artemis, we had two versions; one for single users and another for multiple users.

The software for both was identical and it worked on two different operating systems.

That is one of the advantages you get with well-written software.

Hence my belief that all Aventras have a common TCMS software.

Building Aventras

The article says that Bombardier are gearing up to have six Aventra production lines in Derby, which would mean they can turn out 24 vehicles a week.

That is a high production rate, which would mean that the 222 vehicles for the London Overground could be built in under ten weeks.

Bombardier must be expecting a lot of orders!

 

 

January 27, 2019 Posted by | Transport | , , , , | Leave a comment

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.

Note.

  1. Some of the tunnel portals in the Derwent Valley are Listed.
  2. Trying to electrify the line through the World Heritage Site will be a legal and engineering nightmare.
  3. Network Rail has spent or is spending £250million on upgrading the Erewash Valley Line.
  4. 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.

 

 

November 1, 2018 Posted by | Transport | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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.

  1. The train must leave the East Coast Main Line with a fully-charged battery.
  2. The train must leave the East Coast Main Line as fast as possible.
  3. The train should have a minimum dwell time at all the intermediate stops.
  4. 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!

 

 

 

 

August 29, 2018 Posted by | Transport | , , , , | 3 Comments