Sparking A Revolution
The title of this post is the same as that of an article in Issue 898 of Rail Magazine.
The sub-title is.
When it comes to powering a zero-enissions train with no overhead line infrastructure, battery power is clearly the answer, according to Hitachi.
These are the first three paragraphs.
Over the next decade around 1,000 diesel-powered vehicles will need to be replaced with vehicles that meet emissions standards.
Hitachi, which has been building bi-mode trains for the UK since 2012, and electric trains since 2006, says that retro-fitting old vehicles alone will not be good enough to improve capacity, reliability or passenger satisfaction.
Battery power is the future – not only as a business opportunity for the company, but more importantly for the opportunities it offers the rail industry.
Speaking is Andrew Barr of Hitachi Rail.
Some important points are made.
- Hitachi has identified various towns and cities, where battery trains would be useful including Bristol, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Hastings, Leeds and Manchester.
- Andrew Barr says he gets a lot of questions about battery power.
- Battery power can be used as parts of electrification schemes to bridge gaps, where rebuilding costs of bridges and other infrastructure would be too high.
- Battery trains are ideal for decarbonising branch lines.
- Batteries could be fitted to Class 385, 800, 802 and 810 trains.
Hitachi would like to run a battery train with passengers, within the next twelve months.
The article also gives the specification of a Hitachi battery train.
- Range – 55-65 miles
- Performance – 90-100 mph
- Recharge – 10 minutes when static
- Routes – Suburban near electrified lines
- Battery Life – 8-10 years
These figures are credited to Hitachi.
Hitachi are also thinking about tri-mode trains.
- Batteries could be installed on Class 800-802/810 trains.
- Battery-only power for stations and urban areas.
- 20% performance improvements or 30% fuel savings.
These is also credited to Hitachi.
Costs And Power
This is an insert in the article, which will apply to all applications with traction batteries.
This is said.
The costs of batteries are expected to halve in the next five years, before dropping further again by 2030.
Hitachi cites research by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) which expects costs to fall from £135/kWh at the pack level today to £67/kWh in 2025 and £47/kWh in 2030.
United Kingdom Research and Innovation (UKRI) is also predicting that battery energy density will double in the next 15 years, from 700 Wh/l to 1,400 Wh/l in 2035, while power density (fast charging) is likely to increase four times in the same period from 3 kW/kg now to 12 kW/kg in 2035.
In Batteries On Class 777 Trains, I quoted a source that said that Class 777 trains are built to handle a five tonne battery.
I estimated the capacity as follows.
Energy densities of 60 Wh/Kg or 135 Wh/litre are claimed by Swiss battery manufacturer; Leclanche.
This means that a five tonne battery would hold 300 kWh.
Hitachi’s figures are much higher as it looks like a five tonne battery can hold 15 MWh.
Batteries will be going places on Hitachi trains.
Batteries On Class 777 Trains
In this article on Railway Gazette, which is entitled Merseyrail Class 777 arrives in Liverpool, there is this sentence.
There is space under one vehicle to house a battery weighing up to 5 tonnes within the axleload limit.
This matter-of-fact sentence, draws me to the conclusion, that these trains have been designed from the start to allow future battery operation.
Batteries are not an add-on squeezed into a design with great difficulty.
Battery Capacity
Energy densities of 60 Wh/Kg or 135 Wh/litre are claimed by Swiss battery manufacturer; Leclanche.
This means that a five tonne battery would hold 300 kWh.
Note that Vivarail find space for 424 kWh in the two-car Class 230 train, I wrote about in Battery Class 230 Train Demonstration At Bo’ness And Kinneil Railway, so it would appear that Stadler aren’t being over ambitious.
Kinetic Energy Of A Full Class 777 Train
The weight of a full Class 777 train is calculated as follows.
- Basic empty weight – 99 tonnes
- Battery weight – 5 tonnes
- 484 passengers at 80 Kg – 38.72 tonnes
Which gives a total weight of 143.72 tonnes.
Intriguingly, the weight of a current Class 507 train is 104.5 tonnes, which is 500 Kg more than an empty Class 777 train with a battery!
If these weights are correct, I suspect Stadler have used some very clever lightweight design techniques.
For various speeds, using Omni’s Kinetic Energy Calculator, this weight gives.
- 30 mph – 3.6 kWh
- 40 mph – 6.4 kWh
- 50 mph – 10.0 kWh
- 60 mph – 14.4 kWh
- 70 mph – 19.5 kWh
- 75 mph – 22.4 kWh
Note.
- The average speed between Bidston and Wrexham General stations on the Borderlands Line is under 30 mph
- The operating speed on the Wirral Line is 70 mph
- The operating speed on the Northern Line is 60 mph
- The maximum speed of the trains is 75 mph.
Every time I do these calculations, I’m surprised at how low the kinetic energy of a train seems to be.
How Small Is A Small Battery?
One battery doesn’t seem enough, for a train designed with all the ingenuity of a product with quality and precision, that is designed to out-perform all other trains.
This is another paragraph from the Railway Gazette article.
According to Merseytravel, ‘we want to be able to prove the concept that we could run beyond the third rail’. By storing recovered braking energy, the batteries would help to reduce power demand and the resulting greenhouse gas emissions. All of the Class 777s will be fitted with small batteries to allow independent movement around workshop and maintenance facilities.
I am not quite sure what this means.
It would seem strange to have two independent battery systems in one train.
I think it is more likely, that the smaller battery can be considered the primary battery of the train.
- After all in the depot, it looks after the train’s power requirement.
- Does it also handle all the regenerative braking energy?
- Is it used as a secondary power supply, if say the power is low from the electrification?
- Could it be used to move the train to the next station for passenger evacuation in the event of a power failure?
I wonder if the power system is a bit like the average battery-powered device like a lap-top computer, smart phone or hybrid car.
- The electrification and the regenerative braking charges the battery.
- The battery provides the traction and hotel power for the train.
When the five tonne battery is fitted, does the train’s control system move power between the two batteries to drive the train in the most efficient manner?
I’ll return to factors that define the size of the small battery.
The small battery must be big enough for these purposes.
- Handling regenerative braking at the operating speed.
- Recovering a full train to the next station.
- Keeping a train’s systems running, during power supply problems.
- Moving a train around a depot
As the lines leading to depots are electrified, the train can probably enter a depot with a battery fairly well-charged.
As the new Class 777 trains have a maximum operating speed of 75 mph, I would suspect that the small battery must be able to handle the regenerative braking from 75 mph, which my calculations show is 22.4 kWh with a full train. Let’s call it 30 kWh to have a reserve.
Using Leclanche’s figures, a 30 kWh battery would weigh 500 Kg and have a volume of just under a quarter of a cubic metre (0.222 cubic metre to be exact!)
I suspect the operation of the small battery through a station would be something like this.
- As the train runs from the previous station, the power from the battery will be used by the train, to make sure that there is enough spare capacity in the battery to accommodate the predicted amount of energy generated by regenerative braking.
- Under braking, the regenerative braking energy will be stored in the battery.
- Not all of the kinetic energy of the train will be regenerated, as the process is typically around eighty percent efficient.
- Whilst in the station, the train’s hotel services like air-conditioning, lights and doors, will be run by either the electrification if available or the battery.
- When the train accelerates away, the train’s computer will use the optimal energy source.
The process will repeat, with the battery constantly being charged under braking and discharged under acceleration.
Lithium-ion batteries don’t like this cycling, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see dome other battery or even supercapacitors.
A Trip Between Liverpool and Wrexham Central in A Class 777 Train With A Battery
The train will arrive at Bidston station with 300 kWh in the battery, that has been charged on the loop line under the city.
I will assume that the train is cruising at 50 mph between the twelve stops along the twenty-seven and a half miles to Wrexham Central station.
At each of the twelve stops, the train will use regenerative braking, but it will lose perhaps twenty percent of the kinetic energy. This will be two kWh per stop or 24 kWh in total.
I usually assume that energy usage for hotel functions on the train are calculated using a figure of around three kWh per vehicle mile.
This gives an energy usage of 330 kWh.
But the Class 777 trains have been designed to be very electrically efficient and the train is equivalent in length to a three-car Class 507 train.
So perhaps a the calculation should assume three vehicles not four.
Various usage figures give.
- 3 kWh per vehicle-mile – 247.5 kWh
- 2.5 kWh per vehicle-mile – 206 kWh
- 2 kWh per vehicle-mile – 165 kWh
- 1.5 kWh per vehicle-mile – 123.8 kWh
- 1 kWh per vehicle-mile – 82.5 kWh
Given that station losses between Bidston and Wrexham Central could be around 24 kWh, it looks like the following could be possible.
- With a consumption of 3 kWh per vehicle-mile, a Class 777 train could handle the route, but would need a charging station at Wrexham Central.
- If energy consumption on the train could be cut to 1.5 kWh per vehicle-mile, then a round trip would be possible.
It should also be noted that trains seem to do a very quick stop at Wrexham Central station of just a couple of minutes.
So if charging were to be introduced, there would need to be a longer stop of perhaps eight to ten minutes.
But the mathematics are telling me the following.
- The Class 777 train has been designed to weigh the same empty as a current Class 507 train, despite carrying a five tonne battery.
- If power consumption can be kept low, a Class 777 train with a battery can perform a round trip from Liverpool to Wrexham Central, without charging except on the electrified section of line between Liverpool and Bidston.
- Extra stops would probably be possible, as each would consume about 2 kWh
I feel that these trains have been designed around Liverpool to Wrexham Central.
Conclusion
Wrexham Central here we come!
Other routes are possible.
- Hunts Cross and Manchester Oxford Road – 27 miles
- Ormskirk and Preston – 15 miles
- Headbolt Lane and Skelmersdale – 6 miles
- Ellesmere Port and Helsby – 5 miles
- Kirkby and Wigan Wallgate – 12 miles
Chargers will not be needed at the far terminals.
Gates, Bezos Bet On Flow Battery Technology, A Potential Rival To Big Bets On Lithium-Ion
The title of this post is the same as that of this article on CNBC.
This is the first paragraph.
The U.S. energy storage market is expected to grow by a factor of 12 in the next five years, from 430MW deployed in 2019 to more than 5GW and a value of more than $5 billion by 2024, says Wood Mackenzie Energy Storage Service.
Those are big numbers and it makes me ask the question of whether Planet Earth has enough lithium.
The title of the article says that Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos are looking at flow battery technology, as a possibly alternative to lithium-ion batteries.
What Is Flow Battery Technology?
This is the first sentence of the Wikipedia entry for flow battery.
A flow battery, or redox flow battery (after reduction–oxidation), is a type of electrochemical cell where chemical energy is provided by two chemical components dissolved in liquids contained within the system and separated by a membrane.
Wikipedia’s explanation is comprehensive.
- There are seven different types.
- There are around twenty different chemistries.
- They have various advantages and disadvantages.
- They seem to be less efficient than lithium-ion batteries.
Applications include; load balancing, uninterruptible power supplies, power conversion, electric vehicles and standalone power supplies.
It looks like they are a lithium-ion replacement.
Conclusion
This technology is one to watch.
With all those types and chemistries someone could strike extremely lucky!
The Power Of Battery Storage
This article on Fastmarkets is entitled Neoen To Expand Li-ion Battery Capacity at Hornsdale Plant.
This is the introductory paragraph.
Australia’s Hornsdale Power Reserve, the world’s biggest lithium-ion battery plant, is set to expand capacity by 50% to 150 megawatts, according to Neoen SA, the French power producer that owns and operates the site.
If you read the article and the Wikipedia entry for Hornsdale Power Reserve (HPR), you’ll see why it is being expanded.
This paragraph is from Wikipedia.
After six months of operation, the Hornsdale Power Reserve was responsible for 55% of frequency control and ancillary services in South Australia.[11] By the end of 2018, it was estimated that the Power Reserved had saved A$40 million in costs, most in eliminating the need for a 35 MW Frequency Control Ancillary Service.
Somewhat surprisingly, the power is mainly generated by the associated Hornsdale Wind Farm.
These are some statistics and facts of the installation at Hornsale.
- There are 99 wind turbines with a total generation capacity of 315 megawatts.
- HPR is promoted as the largest lithium-ion battery in the world.
- HPR can store 129 MWh of electricity.
- HPR can discharge 100 MW into the grid.
- The main use of HPR is to provide stability to the grid.
HPR also has a nice little earner, in storing energy, when the spot price is low and selling it when it is higher.
It certainly explains why investors are putting their money in energy storage.
Wikipedia lists four energy storage projects using batteries in the UK, mainly of an experimental nature in Lilroot, Kirkwall, Leighton Buzzard and six related sites in Northern |England. One site of the six has a capacity of 5 MWh, making it one of the largest in Europe.
But then we have the massive Dinorwig power station or Electric Mountain, which can supply ,1,728-MW and has a total storage capacity of 9.1 GWh
Consider.
- Electric Mountain has seventy times the capacity of Hornsdale Power Reserve.
- Electric Mountain cost £425 million in 1984, which would be a cost of £13.5 billion today.
- Another Electric Mountain would cost about £1.6 billion per GWh of energy storage.
- Hornsdale Power Reserve cost $ 50 million or about £26 million.
- Hornsdale Power Reserve would cost about £0.2 billion per GWh of energy storage.
So it would appear that large batteries are better value for money than large pumped storage systems like Electric Mountain.
But it’s not as simple as that!
- There aren’t many places, as suitable as North Wales for large pumped storage systems.
- Omce built, it appears pumped storage system can have a long life. Electric Mountain is thirty-five years old and with updating, I wouldsn’t be surprised to see Electric Mountain in operation at the end of this century.
- Battery sites can be relatively small, so can be placed perhaps in corners of industrial premises or housing developments.
- Battery sites can be built close to where power is needed, but pumped storage can only be built where geography allows.
- Pumped strage systems can need long and expensive connections to the grid.
- I think that the UK will not build another Electric Mountain, but will build several gigawatt-sized energy storage facilities.
- Is there enough lithium and other elements for all these batteries?
- Electric Mountain is well-placed in Snowdonia for some wind farms, but many are in the North Sea on the other side of the country.
In my view what is needed is a series of half-gigawatt storage facilities, spread all over the country.
Highview Power looks to be promising and I wrote about it in British Start-Up Beats World To Holy Grail Of Cheap Energy Storage For Wind And Solar.
But there will be lots of other good ideas!
UK Listed Energy Storage Fund Seeks 182MW Battery Project Pipeline
The title of this post is the same as that of this article on Energy Storage News.
This is the first paragraph.
UK investment management firm Gresham House has confirmed it is to launch a fresh fund raising drive as it sets its sights on a new, 182MW pipeline of battery storage projects.
It is my belief as a Control Engineer, that if we move to renewable energy, like geothermal, hydro, solar, tidal, wave and wind, that the generating capacity must be backed up with large massive of energy storage.
- The energy storage captures excess electricity when nobody needs to use it and feeds it back when consumption exceeds supply.
- I suspect that the National Grid have done extensive simulations of the UK’s energy needs and that they have a model of how much energy storage is needed to support particular mixes and capacities of renewable energy.
- Most of the storage will be lithium-ion or perhaps some of the newer developments, that are creeping into the renewable dictionary.
- The cost of storage, its working life and performance must be well-known, which means that the investors can get a return, that satisfies their needs to fund pensions and insurance policies.
So it would appear that Gresham House have done their sums and come up with a mathematical model, where all are winners.
- UK industry and consumers get enough electricity for their needs.
- Insurance companies and pension funds get a return to fulfil their contractual commitments.
- UK pensioners get a reliable pension.
- UK taxpayers don’t have to fund the much-needed energy storage.
- Our electricity will increasingly be generated by renewables.
- I do suspect that Gresham House will take an appropriate fee.
There may even be an opportunity for the public to invest directly in the future.
For all these winners, there will be losers.
- Oil companies. In Writing On The Wall For Oil Say Funds, I wrote about the opinion of fund managers on oil companies.
- Despots, dictators and religious maniacs, who control much of the world’s oil resources.
I shall cry not one tear for the second group!
I’ll be very interested to see the way that these energy storage funds develop!
Conclusion
These funds will develop in parallel with renewable energy and the energy storage it needs.
As the demand for energy storage will grow significantly, these funds will grow as well to provide the capacity needed to keep the lights on.
Hydrogen Trains To Be Trialled On The Midland Main Line
This article on Railway Gazette is entitled Bimode And Hydrogen Trains As Abellio Wins Next East Midlands Franchise.
Abellio will be taking over the franchise in August this year and although bi-mode trains were certain to be introduced in a couple of years, the trialling of hydrogen-powered trains is a surprise to me and possibly others.
This is all that is said in the article.
Abellio will also trial hydrogen fuel cell trains on the Midland Main Line.
It also says, that the new fleet will not be announced until the orders are finalised.
In this post, I’m assuming that the hydrogen trial will be performed using the main line trains.
Trains for the Midland Main Line will need to have the following properties
- 125 mph on electric power
- 125 mph on diesel power
- Ability to go at up to 140 mph, when idigital n-cab signalling is installed and the track is improved.
- UK gauge
- Ability to run on hydrogen at a future date.
I think there could be three types of train.
- A traditional bi-mode multiple unit, with underfloor engines like the Hitachi Class 800 series, is obviously a possibility.
- An electrical multiple unit, where one driving car is replaced by a bi-mode locomotive with appropriate power.
- Stadler or another manufacturer might opt for a train with a power pack in the middle.
The second option would effectively be a modern InterCity 225.
- South of Kettering, electricity would be used.
- North of Kettering, diesel would be used
- Hydrogen power could replace diesel power at some future date.
- Design could probably make the two cabs and their driving desks identical.
- The locomotive would be interchangeable with a driver car.
Bi-modes would work most services, with electric versions working to Corby at 125 mph.
Which manufacturer has a design for a 125 mph, hydrogen-powered train?
Alstom
Alstom have no 125 mph UK multiple unit and their Class 321 Hydogen train, is certainly not a 125 mph train and probably will still be under development.
Bombardier
In Mathematics Of A Bi-Mode Aventra With Batteries, I compared diesel and hydrogen-power on bi-mode Aventras and felt that hydrogen could be feasible.
In that post, I wrote a section called Diesel Or Hydrogen Power?, where I said this.
Could the better ambience be, because the train doesn’t use noisy and polluting diesel power, but clean hydrogen?
It’s a possibility, especially as Bombardier are Canadian, as are Ballard, who produce hydrogen fuel-cells with output between 100-200 kW.
Ballard’s fuel cells power some of London’s hydrogen buses.
The New Routemaster hybrid bus is powered by a 138 kW Cummins ISBe diesel engine and uses a 75 kWh lithium-ion battery, with the bus being driven by an electric motor.
If you sit in the back of one of these buses, you can sometimes hear the engine stop and start.
In the following calculations, I’m going to assume that the bi-mode |Aventra with batteries has a power source, that can provide up to 200 kW, in a fully-controlled manner
Ballard can do this power output with hydrogen and I’m sure that to do it with a diesel engine and alternator is not the most difficult problem in the world.
So are Bombardier designing the Bi-Mode Aventra With Batteries, so that at a later date it can be changed from diesel to hydrogen power?
All an Aventra needs to run is electricity and the train, the onboard staff and passengers don’t care whether it comes from overhead wires, third-rail, batteries, diesel or hydrogen.
Bombardier also have the technology for my proposed locomotive-based solution, where one driver-car of an Aventra is replaced by what is effectively a locomotive.
If Bombardier have a problem, it is that they have no small diesel train to replace Abellio’s small diesel trains. Could the longer services use the bi-mode Aventras and the shorter ones Aventras with battery power?
CAF
CAF probably have the technology, but there would be a lot of development work to do.
Hitachi
Hitachi have the bi-mode trains in the Class 802 trains, but haven’t as yet disclosed a hydrogen train.
Siemens
They’ve made a few noises, but I can’t see them producing a bi-mode train for 2022.
Stadler
In a few weeks time, I will be having a ride in a Stadler-built Class 755 train, run by Abellio Greater Anglia.
The Class 755 train is a bi-mode 100 mph train, from Stadler’s Flirt family.
Could it be stretched to a 125 mph train?
- Stadler have built 125 mph electric Flirts.
- It is my view, that Stadler have the knowledge to make 125 mph trains work.
- Flirts are available in any reasonable length.
- I’ve read that bi-mode and electric Flirts are very similar for drivers and operators.
These could work the Midland Main Line.
If the mainline version is possible, then Abellio could replace all their smaller diesel trains with appropriate Class 755 trains, just as they will be doing in East Anglia.
Stadler with the launch of the Class 93 locomotive, certainly have the technology for a locomotive-based solution.
East Midlands Railway would be an all-Stadler Flirt fleet.
As to hydrogen, Stadler are supplying hydrogen-powered trains for the Zillertalbahn, as I wrote in Zillertalbahn Orders Stadler Hydrogen-Powered Trains.
Talgo
Talgo could be the joker in the pack. They have the technology to build 125 mph bi-mode trains and are building a factory in Scotland.
My Selection
I think it comes down to a straight choice between Bombardier and Stadler.
It should also be noted, that Abellio has bought large fleets from both manufacturers for their franchises in the UK.
Zero-Carbon Pilots At Six Stations
This promise is stated in the franchise.
Once the electrification reaches Market Harborough in a couple of years, with new bi-mode trains, running on electricity, the following stations will not see any passenger trains, running their diesel engines.
- St. Pancras
- Luton Airport Parkway
- Luton
- Bedford
- Wellingborough
- Kettering
- Corby
- Market Harborough
These are not pilots, as they have been planned to happen, since the go-ahead for the wires to Market Harborough.
Other main line stations include.
- Beeston
- Chesterfield
- Derby
- East Midlands Parkway
- Leicester
- Long Eaaton
- Loughborough
- Nottingham
- Sheffield
Could these stations be ones, where East Midlands Railway will not be emitting any CO2?
For a bi-mode train to be compliant, it must be able to pass through the station using battery power alone.
- As the train decelerates, it charges the onboard batteries, using regernerative braking.
- Battery power is used whilst the train is in the station.
- Battery power is used to take the train out of the station.
Diesel power would only be used well outside of stations.
How would the trains for the secondary routes be emission-friendly?
- For the long Norwich to Derby and Nottingham to Liverpool routes, these would surely be run by shorter versions of the main line trains.
- For Stadler, if secondary routes were to be run using Class 755 trains, the battery option would be added, so that there was no need to run the diesel engines in stations.
- For Bombardier, they may offer battery Aventras or shortened bi-modes for the secondary routes, which could also be emission-free in stations.
- There is also the joker of Porterbrook’s battery-enhaced Class 350 train or BatteryFLEX.
I think that with the right rolling-stock, East Midlands Railway, could be able to avoid running diesel engines in all the stations, where they call.
Why Are Abellio Running A Hydrogen Trial?
This is a question that some might will ask, so I’m adding a few reasons.
A Train Manufacturer Wants To Test A Planned Hydrogen Train
I think that it could be likely, that a train manufacturer wants to trial a hydrogen-powered variant of a high-speed train.
Consider.
- The Midland Main Line is about 160 miles long.
- A lot of the route is quadruple-track.
- It is a 125 mph railway for a proportion of the route.
- It has only a few stops.
- It is reasonably straight with gentle curves.
- Part of the route is electrified.
- It is connected to London at one end.
In my view the Midland Main Line is an ideal test track for bi-mode high speed trains.
A Train Manufacturer Wants To Sell A Fleet Of High Speed Trains
If a train manufacturer said to Abellio, that the fleet of diesel bi-mode trains they are buying could be updated to zero-carbon hydrogen bi-modes in a few years, this could clinch the sale.
Helping with a trial, as Abellio did at Manningtree with Bombardier’s battery Class 379 train in 2015, is probably mutually-beneficial.
The Midland Main Line Will Never Be Fully Electrified
I believe that the Midland Main Line will never be fully-electrified.
- The line North of Derby runs through the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site. Would UNESCO allow electrification?
- I have been told by drivers, that immediately South of Leicester station, there is a section, that would be very difficult to electrify.
- Some secondary routes like Corby to Leicester via Oakham might be left without electrification.
But on the other hand some sections will almost certainly be electrified.
- Around Toton, where High Speed Two crosses the Midland Main Line and the two routes will share East Midlands Hub station.
- Between Clay Cross North Junction and Sheffield, where the route will be shared with the Sheffield Spur of High Speed Two.
- The Erewash Valley Line, if High Speed Two trains use that route to Sheffield.
The Midland Main Line will continue to need bi-mode trains and in 2040, when the Government has said, that diesel will not be used on UK railways,
It is my view, that to run after 2040, there are only two current methods of zero-carbon propulsion; on the sections without overhead electrification battery or hydrogen power.
So we should run trials for both!
Abellio Know About Hydrogen
Abellio is Dutch and after my trip to the Netherlands last week, I wrote The Dutch Plan For Hydrogen, which describes how the Dutch are developing a green hydrogen economy, where the hydrogen is produced by electricity generated from wind power.
So by helping with the trial of hydrogen bi-mode trains on the Midland Main Line, are Abellio increasing their knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of hydrogen-powered trains.
In Thoughts On Eurostar To North Netherlands And North West Germany, I proposed running bi-mode trains on the partially-electrified route between Amsterdam and Hamburg via Groningen and Bremen, which would be timed to connect to Eurostar’s services between London and Amsterdam. These could use diesel, hydrogen or battery power on the sections without electrification.
If hydrogen or battery power were to be used on the European bi-mode train, It would be possible to go between Sheffield and Hamburg on a zero-carbon basis, if all electric power to the route were to be provided from renewable sources.
Abellio Sees The PR Value In Running Zero-Carbon Trains
In My First Ride In An Alstom Coradia iLint, I talked about running hydrogen-powered trains on a hundred mile lines at 60 mph over the flat German countrside
The Midland Main Line is a real high speed railway, where trains go at up to 125 mph between two major cities, that are one-hundred-and-sixty miles apart.
Powered by hydrogen, this could be one of the world’s great railway journeys.
If hydrogen-power is successful, Abellio’s bottom line would benefit.
Conclusion
This franchise will be a big improvement in terms of carbon emissions.
As I said the choice of trains probably lies between Bombardier and Stadler.
But be prepared for a surprise.
Vivarail Unveils Fast Charging System For Class 230 Battery Trains
The title of this post is the same as that of this article on Railway Technology.
A few points from the article.
- Class 230 trains running on battery power have a range of sixty miles.
- Fully charging the train takes seven minutes.
- Short lengths of third and fourth-rail are used.
- Power is provided from a battery bank, which is trickle charged.
I feel this paragraph describes the key feature.
The automatic technique utilises a carbon ceramic shoe, which is capable of withstanding the significant amount of heat generated during the process.
The article finishes with a quote from Vivarail CEO Adrian Shooter.
I know how important it is to the public and the industry as a whole to phase out diesel units and our battery train is paving the way for that to take place today not tomorrow.
Consider.
- Alstom, Bombardier, Siemens and Stadler have built or are building third-rail powered trains for the UK.
- Bombardier, Porterbrook and Stadler are developing battery-powered trains for the UK.
- Trickle-charging of the secondary batteries could be performed by mains power or a local renewable source like wind or solar.
- Control electronics can make this a very safe system, with low risk of anybody being hurt from the electrical systems.
I’ve said it before, but I think that Vivarail may have some very important technology here.
If I have a worry, it is that unscrupulous companies and countries will probably find a way round any patent.
Do Aventras Use Supercapacitors?
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 makes three interesting points.
All Or Most Cars Will Be Powered
In A Detailed Layout Drawing For A Class 345 Train, I give the formation of a Crossrail Class 345 train.
DMS+PMS+MS1+MS3+TS(W)+MS3+MS2+PMS+DMS
Note.
- M signifies a motored car.
- Eight cars have motors and only one doesn’t.
- The train is composed of two identical half-trains, which are separated by the TS(W) car.
- There are four wheelchair spaces in the TS(W) car.
Are the MS!, MS2 and MS3 cars identical?
In addition, I have been told, that all cars in Class 720 trains are motored.
It does seem that Bombardier have fulfilled their statement from 2011.
Remote Wake-Up
This is mentioned in the extract, but there are few other references to it. I quoted a report from the Derby Telegraph, which has since been deleted, in Do Bombardier Aventras Have Remote Wake-Up?.
Supercapacitors And Lithium-Ion Batteries
According to the extract, the trains have been designed to accept supercapacitors or lithium-ion batteries if required.
As the other two statements in the extract appear to be likely, I will continue to believe that all Aventras can have some form of energy storage.
Crossrail
I’ll look first at Crossrail’s Class 345 train.
In How Much Energy Does A Crossrail Class 345 Train Use?, using the train’s data sheet, I came to the conclusion, that electricity usage of the trains is 2.67 KWh per car per kiometre or 3.29 KWh per car per mile.
In the linked post, I also calculate the kinetic energy of a fully-loaded nine-car Crossrail train.
I’ll repeat it.
- If I take a nine-car Class 345 train, this has a mass of less than 350 tonnes and a maximum speed of 145 kph.
- 1500 passengers at 80 kg each works out at another 120 tonnes.
- So for this crude estimate I’ll use 450 tonnes for the mass of a loaded train.
This gives the train a kinetic energy of 101 KWh.
As the Class 345 trains are effectively two half trains, with two PMS cars with pantographs, it is likely that they have at least two cars that are ready for supercapacitors or lithium-ion batteries.
The Design Of Crossrail
Crossrail could best be described as the Victoria Line on steroids.
- Both lines were designed to run in excess of twenty-four trains per hour (tph) across London.
- The Victoria Line was built to deep-level Underground standards, with one of the most advanced-for-its-time and successful train operating systems of all times.
- Crossrail is a modern rail line being built to National Rail standards, with world-leading advanced technology, that takes full account of modern environmental standards and aspirations.
Costs were saved on the Victoria Line by leaving out important parts of the original design..
- The route was cut back to Walthamstow Central, from the proposed terminus at Walthamstow Wood Street or possibly South Woodford or Woodford.
- Some stations like Highbury & Islington were built to a totally inadequate low-cost design.
- Third escalators at stations were changed into stairs.
- Step-free access was non-existent at the opening, but has been added to some stations since.
- Cross platform interchange with the Chingford Branch Line was left out at Walthamstow Central station.
Costs were saved on Crossrail, by using high-quality design.
- Crossrail and the Great Western Main Line electrification share a sub-station to connect to the National Grid.
- The number of ventilation and access shafts was reduced significantly, with one in a new office block; Moor House.
- Electrification uses a simple overhead rail, which is only fed with power at the ends.
I also believe that the Class 345 trains, which were designed specifically for the route, were designed to save energy and increase safety in the tunnels.
Regenerative braking normally saves energy by returning braking energy through the electrification, so it can be used to power other nearby trains.
Batteries For Regenerative Braking
However, in recent years, there has been increasing interest in diverting the braking energy to onboard energy storage devices on the train, so that it can be used when the train accelerates or to power systems on the train.
The system has these advantages.
- Less energy is needed to power the trains.
- Simpler and less costly transformers can be used for the electrification.
- The onboard energy storage can be used to power the train after an electrification failure.
- In tunnels, there is less heat-producing electricity flowing in all the cables.
Obviously, keeping the heat down in the tunnels is a good thing.
A Station Stop On Crossrail Using Regenerative Braking And Energy Storage
Imagine a fully-loaded train approaching a station, at the maximum speed on 145 kph.
- The train will have a kinetic energy of 101 kWh.
- As it approaches the station, the brakes will be applied and the regenerative brakes will turn the train’s energy into electricity.
- This energy will be stored in the onboard energy storage.
- As the train accelerates away from the station, the electricity in the onboard energy storage can be used.
The only problem, is that regenerative braking is unlikely to recover all of the train’s kinetic energy. But this is not a big problem, as the train draws any extra power needed from the electrification.
To make the system as efficient as possible, the following must be fitted.
- The most efficient traction motor.
- Onboard energy storage capable of handling the maximum kinetic energy of the train.
- Onboard energy storage with a fast response time.
The train will probably be controlled by a sophisticated computer system.
What Size Of Onboard Energy Storage Should Be Fitted?
Obviously, this is only speculation and a best guess, but the following conditions must be met.
- The onboard energy storage must be able to capture the maximum amount of energy generated by braking.
- The physical size of the energy storage system must be practical and easily fitted under or on the train.
- The energy storage system should be able to store enough energy to be able to move a stalled train to safety in the event of complete power failure.
Note that an energy storage system with a 100 kWh capacity would probably take the train somewhere around four to five kilometres.
Obviously, a series of computer simulations based on the route, passengers and various other conditions, would indicate the capacity, but I feel a capacity of around 120 kWh might be the place to start.
Where Would The Energy Storage Be Placed?
With nine cars, and with eight of them motored, there are a several choices.
- One energy storage unit in all motored cars.
- One energy storage unit in the three MS cars.
- One energy storage unit in each half train.
I’ve always liked the concept of an energy storage unit in each powered car, as it creates a nice tight unit, with energy stored near to where it is generated and used.
But there is another big advantage in splitting up the energy storage – the individual units are smaller.
Could this mean that supercapacitors could be used?
- The main need for onboard energy storage is to handle regenerative braking.
- The secondary need for onboard energy storage is for emergency power.
- There is no needon Crossrail as yet,to run the trains for long distances on stored power.
- Supercapacitors are smaller.
- Supercapacitors can handle more operating cycles.
- Supercapacitors run cooler.
- Supercapacitors have a fast response.
If running for longer distances were to be required in the future, which might require lithium-ion or some other form of batteries, I’m sure there will be space for them, under all those cars.
I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that Crossrail’s Class 345 trains are fitted with supercapacitors.
Note, that a Bombardier driver-trainer, talked of an emergency power supply, when I asked what happens if the Russians hacked the electrification.
Class 710 Trains
London Overground’s Class 710 trains are a bit of a mystery at the moment as except for a capacity of seven hundred passengers disclosed in this article on the International Railway Journal little has been published.
Here are my best guesses.
Formation
Based on the formation of the Class 345 trains, I think it will be.
DMS+PMS+MS+DMS
Effectively, this is a half-train of a seven-car Class 345 train, with a DMS car on the other end.
Dimensions
I have a Bombardier press release, which says that the car length is twenty metres, which is the same as Class 315, Class 317 and Class 378 trains and a whole load of other trains, as twenty metre cars, were a British Rail standard.
I doubt there will be much platform lengthening for these trains in the next few years.
Weight
The Wikipedia entry for Aventra gives car weight at between thirty and thirty-five tonnes, so the train weight can be anything between 120-140 tonnes.
Passenger Capacity
I wrote about this in The Capacity Of London Overground’s New Class 710 Trains.
This was my conclusion.
It appears that seven hundred is the only published figure and if it is, these new Class 710 trains are going to substantially increase public transport capacity across North London.
They are certainly future-proofed for an outbreak of London Overground Syndrome, where passenger numbers greatly exceed forecasts.
As some of the trains are being delivered as five-car units, there is always the option of adding an extra car. Especially, as the platforms on the line, seem to have been built for five or even six car trains.
London Overground have not made the platform length miscalculations of the North and East London Lines.
For the near future they’ll hold around 700 passengers at 80 Kg. each, which means a passenger weight of fifty-six tonnes.
Full Train Weight
For various train weights, the fully-loaded trains will be.
- 120 tonnes – 176 tonnes
- 130 tonnes – 186 tonnes
- 140 tonnes – 196 tonnes
Until I get a better weight for the train, I think I’ll use 130 tonnes or 186 tonnes, when fully-loaded.
Speed
I wrote about this in What Is The Operating Speed Of Class 710 Trains?.
This was my conclusion.
But what will be the operating speed of the Class 710 trains?
I said it will be somewhere between 145 kph (90 mph) and 160 kph (100 mph)
Consider.
- I think that 145 kph, will be able to handle the two planned increased frequencies of four tph.
- 145 kph is identical to the Crossrail trains.
- 160 kph is identical to the Greater Anglia trains.
- 160 kph seems to be the speed of suburban Aventras.
It’s a difficult one to call!
I do think though, that trundling around the Overground, they’ll be running at the same 121 kph of all the other trains.
Kinetic Energy
The kinetic energy of a 186 tonnes train at 121 kph is 29 kWh.
Could Supercapacitors Handle This Amount Of Energy?
I’m pretty certain they could.
Conclusion
Supercapacitors are a possibility for both trains!
I’ll review these calculations, as more information is published.
Thoughts On A Battery/Electric Train With Batteries And Capacitors
I’m going to use a Class 350/2 train as the example.
In Porterbrook Makes Case For Battery/Electric Bi-Mode Conversion, I calculated the kinetic energy of one of these trains at various speeds.
Wikipedia gives this information.
- Maximum Speed – 100 mph
- Train Weight – 175.5 tonnes
- Capacity – Around 380 passengers
If I assume each passenger weighs 90 Kg with baggage, bikes and buggies, the train weight is 209.7 tonnes.
This weight could be a bit high, bnut then the train must perform even when crush-loaded.
Using Omni’s Kinetic Energy Calculator, I get the following kinetic energies at various speeds.
- 80 mph – 37.2 kWh
- 90 mph – 47.1 kWh
- 100 mph – 58.2 kWh
- 110 mph – 70.4 kWh
In the video shown in A Must-Watch Video About Skeleton Technologies And Ultracapacitors., Taavi Madiberk of Skeleton Technologies likens a capacitor/battery energy store with Usain Bolt paired with a marathon runner. Usain would handle the fast energy transfer of braking and acceleration, with the marathon runner doing the cruising.
This would seem to be a good plan, as the capacitors could probably quickly store the regenerative braking energy and release it at a high rate to accelerate the train.
Once, up to operating speed, the lithium-ion batteries would take over and keep the train at the required speed.
Obviously, it would be more complicated than that and the sophisticated control system would move electricity about to keep the train running efficiently and to maximum range.
The capacitors should probably be sized to handle all the regenerative braking energy, so for a 100 mph train, which would have a kinetic energy of 58.2 kWh, a 100 kWh capacitor would probably be large enough.
In some ways the lithium-ion batteries can be considered to be a backup to the capacitors.
- They provide extra power where needed.
- If during deceleration, the capacitors become full, energy could be transferred to the lithium-ion batteries.
- If after acceleration, the capacitors have got more energy than they need, it could be transferred to the lithium-ion batteries.
- The lithium-ion batteries would probably power all the hotel services, like air-con, lights doors etc. of the train.
Note that the energy transfer between the capacitors and the lithium-ion batteries should be very fast.
A good Control Engineer could have a lot of fun with sorting the trains control system.
Mathematics Of Energy Storage
I am particularly talking about the sort of energy storage that is attracting the attention of Energy Storage Funds, that I wrote about in Batteries On The Boil As Fund Attracts Investors.
The Times article of the same name has this paragraph.
A typical 50-megawatt energy storage site of the kind the company intends to acquire hosts 19 containers each housing thousands of lithium-ion cells. A fully-charged container has the energy to boil 32,000 kettles.
This page on ConfusedEnergy.co.uk, says this.
We are often told to only use as much water as we need in a kettle and not to fill it to the top, but what are the potential annual saving in doing this. Well it takes roughly 4.5 minutes to boil a full (2 litre) kettle with a power rating of 3kW (kilowatts).
This means that to boil a kettle needs 0.225 kWh.
- Boiling 32,000 kettles needs 7200 kWh or 7.2 MWh
- Which means that the total capacity of the nineteen container energy storage facility is 136.8 MWh.
So the energy storage could provide the rated 50 MW for nearly three hours.
Lithium-Ion Batteries, Supercapacitors Or Both?
The article in The Times doesn’t mention supercapacitors.
If you watch the video in A Must-Watch Video About Skeleton Technologies And Ultracapacitors, Skeleton Technologies state the following about their ultracapacitors.
- They are more affordable.
- They generate less heat.
- They have a higher energy density.
- They can handle more charge/discharge cycles.
- They have a faster response time, so would respond better to sudden demands.
I suspect there may be several operational and financial advantages, in replacing some of the lithium-ion batteries with supercapacitors.