Class 379 Battery Power testing Manningtree - Harwich town 06/01/15

[SpacePhoenix]

If it wasn't for the steep hill coming out of Weymouth the stretch between Weymouth and Poole would have been a future possibility (if the SWML ever gets converted to overhead).

If the tech is proven and enough miles can be got per charge then could it be used on Merseyrail for the undergrounds sections (the loop bit) allowing the possibility of the Merseyrail network being converted to overhead at some point?

 

[Buttsy]

Not much use for Blackpool. It will be electrified in early 2017 and Manchester-Preston via Bolton won't be electric until then, so that just leaves the potential to use 3 trains on Liverpool South Parkway to Blackpool North services between May 2015 and December 2016. (The line will be closed for 3 months from December 2016.)

I was thinking of South once North wired by splitting the Colne service to run just to Preston so that Lytham & St Annes could possibly have a through service to Manchester or link it with the Ormskirk line as it once was.

 

[edwin_m]

how far is Cambridge-Ipswich? I see a lot of passengers come off a a train from Ipswich joining the 0747 to Liverpool Street in the morning- they'll mainly be from Bury St Edmunds and Newmarket. The rear of the 0747 comes from the sidings.

Cambridge-Ipswich would be too far - it takes over an hour. Short workings London-Newmarket might be a possibility if they could be fitted on the single line from Cambridge.

 

[AM9]

If it wasn't for the steep hill coming out of Weymouth the stretch between Weymouth and Poole would have been a future possibility (if the SWML ever gets converted to overhead).

OHLE would not be necessary, there's already an adequate DC supply at Weymouth. I assume that the charging system is powered from the main traction bus, (DC, i.e. pre the inverters), it could be applied equally to both AC only stock, such as the 379s, DC only like the 450s and all the dual voltage stock (375s, 377s). Short lengths of 3rd rail could be used at major stops along the line to boost the charge, thereby extending the range.

 

[jon0844]

Does anyone know long it takes to charge the batteries on the test train?

Clearly it's getting a somewhat higher input than most electric devices or even electric cars, so it should be possible to charge significantly faster - although there's probably a heavy impact on the battery lifespan by doing so.

But if you can't top up the batteries quickly, then it is probably not going to be very practical as you'd have trains out of service for too long, requiring a much larger fleet with trains 'parked up' on charge.

 

[northwichcat]

I was thinking of South once North wired by splitting the Colne service to run just to Preston so that Lytham & St Annes could possibly have a through service to Manchester or link it with the Ormskirk line as it once was.

But then would it be worth it to have 3 or 4 battery trains for one route? Unless you propose a large fleet of 379s for the North West instead of 319s and 323s with a small number having batteries for routes like that?

 

[Buttsy]

But then would it be worth it to have 3 or 4 battery trains for one route? Unless you propose a large fleet of 379s for the North West instead of 319s and 323s with a small number having batteries for routes like that?

Morecambe branch, Southport from Wigan, Rose Hill, New Mills and potentially (at a later date Kirkby, Chester via Altrincham, Leeds - Morecambe/Heysham and Buxton) routes could also benefit.

The routes I suggested were examples off the top of my head. I would suggest that starting on short lines and going to longer ones would be the best way of ensuring the technology is reliable.

As has been seen before, it isn't cast in stone what units work where (apart from that Pacers MUST work in the North )

 

[northwichcat]

Morecambe branch, Southport from Wigan, Rose Hill, New Mills and potentially (at a later date Kirkby, Chester via Altrincham, Leeds - Morecambe/Heysham and Buxton) routes could also benefit.

You'd need very long range on batteries for some of those.

Once Wigan-Bolton is electrified it's expected all Manchester-Southport services will operate via the non-electrified Atherton line, with one unit being used to provide a Kirkby-Wigan shuttle.

Hazel Grove-Buxton is 17 miles of very steep track. Buxton being the highest town in Britain.

Rose Hill is being looked at as a tram-train scheme.

Chester-Stockport is 39 miles, unless you're assuming there might be some additional Greenbank-Manchester services introduced which would bring down the distance travelled not under wires.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the tech is proven and enough miles can be got per charge then could it be used on Merseyrail for the undergrounds sections (the loop bit) allowing the possibility of the Merseyrail network being converted to overhead at some point?

I think the Wirral Line tunnels are large enough for an "overhead third rail" type of OHLE, if that were to be necessary. Though the Northern Line ones around Moorfields would require enlarging as they are lower.

FWIW, though, metro systems all over the world use third-rail. Why would there be a need to convert this one, other than possibly changing to a safer system of side- or bottom-contact shielded third rail?

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I was thinking of South once North wired by splitting the Colne service to run just to Preston so that Lytham & St Annes could possibly have a through service to Manchester or link it with the Ormskirk line as it once was.

There isn't a significant through demand for Ormskirk-Blackpool - people take a wide range of connections at Preston or are (mostly) just going to Preston, so there would be no benefit to doing this unless it was for operational convenience, e.g. running a 2-unit hourly service without massively long layovers at both ends.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

FWIW, though, metro systems all over the world use third-rail. Why would there be a need to convert this one, other than possibly changing to a safer system of side- or bottom-contact shielded third rail?

There's been suggestions that switching from 3rd rail to overheads could allow more services which is why it's being looked at in the South. However, Merseyrail don't seem to have any problems with a high frequency on the city centre loop.

 

[Buttsy]

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


There isn't a significant through demand for Ormskirk-Blackpool - people take a wide range of connections at Preston or are (mostly) just going to Preston, so there would be no benefit to doing this unless it was for operational convenience, e.g. running a 2-unit hourly service without massively long layovers at both ends.

Neil

That was my thinking, avoiding lay-overs at a station with no useful north facing bay. Would potentially increase the frequency on the Ormskirk route to hourly.

 

[Camden]

I would have thought the obvious place to use these would be on the trans Pennine routes that have bits electric and bits not. It's economical to electrify some parts of this line, but maybe not others. What do you do then, withdraw the service entirely from the bit you couldn't quite reach? Or continue to run diesels under the wires? This might even provide for gaps in between cities, as I gather the plan to electrify the bits in the middle may be in doubt.

http://www.yorkshirecoastradio.com/news/local-news/862326/scarborough-trains-wont-be-electrified/

I wonder if this might point the way to cheaper and wider electrification, as only the easy or high return bits then need to get done with the rest making use of the battery.

 

[northwichcat]

I would have thought the obvious place to use these would be on the trans Pennine routes that have bits electric and bits not. It's economical to electrify some parts of this line, but maybe not others. What do you do then, withdraw the service entirely from the bit you couldn't quite reach? Or continue to run diesels under the wires? This might even provide for gaps in between cities, as I gather the plan to electrify the bits in the middle may be in doubt.

http://www.yorkshirecoastradio.com/news/local-news/862326/scarborough-trains-wont-be-electrified/

I wonder if this might point the way to cheaper and wider electrification, as only the easy or high return bits then need to get done with the rest making use of the battery.

For TPE the questions are:
1. What's the maximum speed which can be achieved under battery power?
2. What's the range of battery power?

For instance, keeping Liverpool to Scarborough via Warrington as it is would result in a 145 mile journey with 29 of the first 34 miles and the last 42 miles not under the wires, so the train would only be under the wires for around half the journey.

On the other hand bi-mode IEP apparently has a 700 mile range on non-electrified sections between refueling so would probably allow a complete diagram for the day to be covered without refueling or being left idle for long periods to recharge.

 

[swt_passenger]

There's been suggestions that switching from 3rd rail to overheads could allow more services which is why it's being looked at in the South. However, Merseyrail don't seem to have any problems with a high frequency on the city centre loop.

Third rail DC technology itself doesn't prevent reasonably high frequencies. There are plenty of 'southern routes' that run at significantly higher frequency than the loop already - that is an unwise comparison. The loop capacity is one way as well, a third rail two track railway operating around 20 tph in each direction is not unusual.

The problem on a longer mixed traffic railway such as west of Basingstoke is that the present DC equipment is designed with capacity only for current levels of EMU traffic, so it has to either be augmented at vast cost or completely replaced at vast cost. Add the DfT new requirement to run through trains from north to south through Basingstoke and you then have to decide on whether to run dual voltage trains on enhanced DC, or convert to AC. It is the long term cost comparisons of doing this that causes the debate about AC or DC.

So running more trains could be achieved with a higher capacity DC system, but they'd still be capped at around 100 mph, and it would be a 'technology island' compared to the increasing national system. We're at a once in a lifetime decision point.

 

[Camden]

Third rail DC technology itself doesn't prevent reasonably high frequencies. There are plenty of 'southern routes' that run at significantly higher frequency than the loop already - that is an unwise comparison. The loop capacity is one way as well, a third rail two track railway operating around 20 tph in each direction is not unusual.

The problem on a longer mixed traffic railway such as west of Basingstoke is that the present DC equipment is designed with capacity only for current levels of EMU traffic, so it has to either be augmented at vast cost or completely replaced at vast cost. Add the DfT new requirement to run through trains from north to south through Basingstoke and you then have to decide on whether to run dual voltage trains on enhanced DC, or convert to AC. It is the long term cost comparisons of doing this that causes the debate about AC or DC.

So running more trains could be achieved with a higher capacity DC system, but they'd still be capped at around 100 mph, and it would be a 'technology island' compared to the increasing national system. We're at a once in a lifetime decision point.

DC for lower speed frequent stops, AC for longer distance higher speed services. Both from performance and energy usage perspectives. Long term cost comparisons, it's not as clear cut to say one is more expensive that the other. If third rail is already in place it's daft in my opinion to rip it up and replace it unless it's a long distance higher speed route. If third rail is already in place in a metro area, it really is daft to talk about replacing it. I'd even say it's daft to talk of "dual voltage" as seems to be the fashion these days when contemplating expansions. Third rail isn't that expensive, but I'd argue blanket policy imposition is, in various ways.

For TPE the questions are:
1. What's the maximum speed which can be achieved under battery power?
2. What's the range of battery power?

For instance, keeping Liverpool to Scarborough via Warrington as it is would result in a 145 mile journey with 29 of the first 34 miles and the last 42 miles not under the wires, so the train would only be under the wires for around half the journey.

On the other hand bi-mode IEP apparently has a 700 mile range on non-electrified sections between refueling so would probably allow a complete diagram for the day to be covered without refueling or being left idle for long periods to recharge.

In that scenario I'm not talking about running on batteries with electrification as is, but with the most cost effective bits completed. So Liverpool to Manchester via Warrington would be electric, as would the bit to Selby. It would be isolated points, so the final stretch to Scarborough, and maybe some isolated expensive to do bits between yorkshire towns. Of course it depends on how expensive this battery tech is, but strikes me it could make cases for electric services easier to make.

 

[northwichcat]

In that scenario I'm not talking about running on batteries with electrification as is, but with the most cost effective bits completed. So Liverpool to Manchester via Warrington would be electric, as would the bit to Selby.

OK so the scenario I described was running a current TPE service as it is after the proposed electrification, in response to your post about people not liking services being cut back.

However, there is a different scenario to consider. Hypothetically it's a Sunday and Standedge Tunnels are closed for engineering works, as it the line through Dewsbury. Say it's a Middlesbrough-Manchester Airport service with a battery to operate York-Middlesbrough but the train then has to divert via Mirfield and Rochdale due to the tunnels being closed. Do you ensure the battery is able to cover the worst possible scenario or not?

 

[Camden]

OK so the scenario I described was running a current TPE service as it is after the proposed electrification, in response to your post about people not liking services being cut back.

However, there is a different scenario to consider. Hypothetically it's a Sunday and Standedge Tunnels are closed for engineering works, as it the line through Dewsbury. Say it's a Middlesbrough-Manchester Airport service with a battery to operate York-Middlesbrough but the train then has to divert via Mirfield and Rochdale due to the tunnels being closed. Do you ensure the battery is able to cover the worst possible scenario or not?

No, you'd have to provide a bus service if the rolling stock couldn't handle it. That's an exception though, so I don't see an issue. Bus services sometimes have to happen.

Here's another scenario though. You're travelling along this route under wires and the power fails. If it's an all electric service you're stranded, but with a battery powered train you can keep on going at least to the next station (which beats being stranded).

Also an exception in terms of how it actually needs to be used, but shows there is are potential upsides as well as downsides to this tech.

 

[northwichcat]

No, you'd have to provide a bus service if the rolling stock couldn't handle it. That's an exception though, so I don't see an issue. Bus services sometimes have to happen.

Given TPE have to provide a service 7 days a week and overnight services I think it's very likely the winner of the next franchise will reject the idea of taking on battery powered trains if they can't cover the diversions which will occur and settle for DMUs instead. Remember when Virgin said they needed Voyagers for the fully electrified Birmingham-Scotland route until the diversionary routes are electrified and instructed people working for their customer services team to give that as the bog standard response to anyone questioning why diesel Voyagers are used on that route?

Of course another scenario is a signalling problem occurs on a non-electrified section after the train running on battery is already on it and that has to be covered for unless you're going to have a load of diesel rescue locos sat around.

Here's another scenario though. You're travelling along this route under wires and the power fails. If it's an all electric service you're stranded, but with a battery powered train you can keep on going at least to the next station (which beats being stranded).

Unless an electric train without a back-up battery or diesel engine is between you and the next station. Voyagers frequently get stuck when WCML or ECML wires come down for that reason.

 

[edwin_m]

Here's another scenario though. You're travelling along this route under wires and the power fails. If it's an all electric service you're stranded, but with a battery powered train you can keep on going at least to the next station (which beats being stranded).

TfL is talking about that for the New Tube for London (for wires read fourth rail of course). It would be very useful to get people to the next station because only the Jubilee Line Extension has proper side walkways so if stuck in any other tunnel they have to evacuate passengers along the track.

 

[Camden]

TfL is talking about that for the New Tube for London (for wires read fourth rail of course). It would be very useful to get people to the next station because only the Jubilee Line Extension has proper side walkways so if stuck in any other tunnel they have to evacuate passengers along the track.

Yes, and that's not fun. Question there though I guess is how many times you get stuck through power failure and how many times you get stuck through signals/points failures. In the latter, you're mostly stuck no matter what and in the former well it depends if the power failure means there's also no signals. Being stuck isn't fun, but playing bumper tubes wouldn't be either.

 

[swt_passenger]

Testing in passenger service for one month between Harwich International and Manningtree:

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...n-carries-passengers-for-first-time-2230.aspx

There was some debate earlier in the thread about which branch would see passenger testing.

 

[johnnyp_360]

how far is Cambridge-Ipswich? I see a lot of passengers come off a a train from Ipswich joining the 0747 to Liverpool Street in the morning- they'll mainly be from Bury St Edmunds and Newmarket. The rear of the 0747 comes from the sidings.

Could this be used to free up an AGA 170 or two? I wonder if one can make it from Cambridge to Haughley Junction/Stowmarket as a regular timetabled service.

 

[Class377/5]

Could this be used to free up an AGA 170 or two? I wonder if one can make it from Cambridge to Haughley Junction/Stowmarket as a regular timetabled service.

No. Its only in battery mode for awhile before being turned back into an EMU.