Do IPEMUs mean the End of Electrification?

[43021HST]

Sheer speculation this, reading about the IPEMU concept and it occurred to me, that should this concept become advanced enough, this could potentially mean that the current system of erecting expensive electrification equipment, may come to an end.

If the trains were simply re-charged at terminals and depots and the battery's can last long enough. Would it not be cheaper and more efficient to use battery operation than overhead power collection?

Furthermore, I'm sure it could mean that existing overhead could be phased out in favour of battery operation.

Just curious on peoples thoughts with this.

 

[class26]

Sheer speculation this, reading about the IPEMU concept and it occurred to me, that should this concept become advanced enough, this could potentially mean that the current system of erecting expensive electrification equipment, may come to an end.

If the trains were simply re-charged at terminals and depots and the battery's can last long enough. Would it not be cheaper and more efficient to use battery operation than overhead power collection?

Furthermore, I'm sure it could mean that existing overhead could be phased out in favour of battery operation.

Just curious on peoples thoughts with this.

Turnaround times might be interesting !

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would say it's useful for "last few miles" branches where the unit can charge on the mainline run (think for example Barrow and Windermere), but not yet for replacing wires.

 

[NSEFAN]

Battery charging time and capacity is still a problem for vehicles as power-hungry as trains. If we ever do see IPEMUs become mainstream it will be under very specific circumstances, where there is only partial electrification but extension is not economically viable. One such example could well be the North Downs line, for example.

 

[43021HST]

Battery charging time and capacity is still a problem for vehicles as power-hungry as trains. If we ever do see IPEMUs become mainstream it will be under very specific circumstances, where there is only partial electrification but extension is not economically viable. One such example could well be the North Downs line, for example.

I imagine that to be the case, the Thames Valley Branches would be ripe contenders for IPEMUs.

Hmm how about the viability for longer distance journeys, maybe an IPEMU pendo conversion for use on the Euston - Chester/Holyhead runs, the majority of the run is under the wires anyway.

 

[Domh245]

I imagine that to be the case, the Thames Valley Branches would be ripe contenders for IPEMUs.

Hmm how about the viability for longer distance journeys, maybe an IPEMU pendo conversion for use on the Euston - Chester/Holyhead runs, the majority of the run is under the wires anyway.

You'd need to find a fair amount of space to put all the batteries, which is impractical on a new train, and I imagine pretty difficult on an older one.

 

[NSEFAN]

I imagine that to be the case, the Thames Valley Branches would be ripe contenders for IPEMUs.

Hmm how about the viability for longer distance journeys, maybe an IPEMU pendo conversion for use on the Euston - Chester/Holyhead runs, the majority of the run is under the wires anyway.

I'd be surprised if Crewe - Holyhead could be done entirely on batteries. The range of the class 379 IPEMU experiment was approximately 60 miles, and required 2 hours of charging for 1 hour of operation. Either a serious improvement is going to be needed in battery capacity, or else some intermediate AC electrification would be needed for charging en-route.

Even over the NDL the expermental IPEMU in its current form would struggle to be a replacement for the existing DMUs. There's two sections of non-electrified route, 12 miles from Aldershot South Junction to Wokingham, and 17 miles from Shalford Junction to Reigate, so well below the 60 mile range of the experimental IPEMU for a single leg. However, the time spent by a current stopping service over the non-electrified parts is 52 minutes, so let's say that 1 hour 45 is required for recharging. The time spent by the unit on the electrified sections is only around 36 minutes, including the turn around times at each end. Therefore additional dwell time would have to be added, meaning more units would be needed to replace the DMUs. Extra platforms or sidings are therefore required to make this work, and possibly some extension of the electrification to increase opportunities for charging the batteries.

Edit: the Gatwick services would also run out of power, with only 48 minutes to recharge per leg, so the limiting factor seems to be either the amount of power which can be drawn from the supply, or more likely the charging rate of the batteries. This problem also throws a spanner in the works for the Thames Valley branches, which would be mostly unelectrified. Ironically the Greenford branch has a better chance of working, with the longer run into Paddington, but this won't be the case in the future with West Ealing bay now installed!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I'd be surprised if Crewe - Holyhead could be done entirely on batteries.

Me too. Also - I am not up to date with what freight moves on the Railway but I would have thought some freight moves along that line - unless it gets shipped out of Liverpool. If you take freight into consideration then battery not enough IMHO.

 

[NSEFAN]

Me too. Also - I am not up to date with what freight moves on the Railway but I would have thought some freight moves along that line - unless it gets shipped out of Liverpool. If you take freight into consideration then battery not enough IMHO.

I'd assume that battery operated freight trains over any significant distance are a complete non-starter.

Well, they'd start but not get very far.

 

[theageofthetra]

I would have thought that the length of the journey isn't the main issue- its the variation in gradient on that route and the number of times the train has to accelerate away from a standing start.

 

[Elecman]

No the system is neither robust enough nor mature enough and is unlikely to ever be so

 

[bastien]

How about electrifying the long, easy parts of a route, then using the batteries through the short tricky-to-wire bits?

 

[43021HST]

I'd assume that battery operated freight trains over any significant distance are a complete non-starter.

Well, they'd start but not get very far.

LU seem to manage perfectly well .
Many Freight trains have lengthy layovers in passing loops, surely would that be the ideal opportunity to recharge.

 

[Elecman]

How do they recharge in loops on a non electrified route?

 

[43021HST]

How do they recharge in loops on a non electrified route?

In the same way electric cars can re-charge on non-electrified roads. :roll:

 

[GRALISTAIR]

How about electrifying the long, easy parts of a route, then using the batteries through the short tricky-to-wire bits?

You mean say on Clitheroe-Blackburn-Darwen-Manchester where there is/are IIRC a very tricky structure to electrify - if not more than 1?

 

[TwistedMentat]

The short branch lines could be interesting. Especially if you go for a more plug in hybrid approach. Battery for most of the time but diesel for when it juts gets a little too low.

Modern Lithium-Ion battery tech is probably at the point where it is no longer a crazy idea.

 

[NSEFAN]

LU seem to manage perfectly well .
Many Freight trains have lengthy layovers in passing loops, surely would that be the ideal opportunity to recharge.

And those spend most of their time not moving during possessions. Hardly comparable to a full length loaded long-distance 75mph freightliner.

And freight doesn't spend that long in goods loops, or that get looped that often, certainly not enough to recharge batteries to any meaningful level. If a 4 car IPEMU has a range of 60 miles to move a weight of about 180t, I don't think a freight which is much heavier will get even that far. It's hardly convenient to have to stop a freight to recharge every 20 miles, each charge taking a couple of hours!

 

[rebmcr]

It's within current technology to reliably swap out a battery cartridge at a terminal station, using automatic equipment under the platform edge.

 

[najaB]

It's within current technology to reliably swap out a battery cartridge at a terminal station, using automatic equipment under the platform edge.

The idea of exceptionally high currents flowing through easily detached terminals scares me.

 

[QueensCurve]

Me too. Also - I am not up to date with what freight moves on the Railway but I would have thought some freight moves along that line - unless it gets shipped out of Liverpool. If you take freight into consideration then battery not enough IMHO.

Virtually none. There is still irradiated reactor fuel from Wylfa and may be from WylfaB in the future and another thread suggested there may be a resurgeance of traffic from Penmaenmawr Quarry.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Virtually none. There is still irradiated reactor fuel from Wylfa and may be from WylfaB in the future and another thread suggested there may be a resurgeance of traffic from Penmaenmawr Quarry.

Not too bad for battery then.

 

[broadgage]

Battery technology has improved significantly and battery powered trains are now entirely doable for modest distances, up to say 60 miles.
Greater distances are of course possible but the cost, weight, and bulk of the battery would start to make electrification or diesel power more worthwhile.

Economy in battery usage/extension of the range is possible in various ways.

The north downs line is a good example, already partly electrified but unlikely to be fully electrified due to safety concerns about new/extended conductor rail schemes.

Through services from electrified main lines on to heritage or community railways would be another possibility.

Very exposed or otherwise problematic parts of generally electrified main lines would be yet another possibility. Consider for example the sea wall route at Dawlish. When that line is electrified it could be simpler to omit* the sea wall section of over head*. Trains could use battery power for the most exposed and problematic mile or two. *To avoid continual lowering and raising of the pantograph, it might be easier to install "dummy" overhead that is never live but that allows the pantograph to slide along without interruption.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Very exposed or otherwise problematic parts of generally electrified main lines would be yet another possibility. Consider for example the sea wall route at Dawlish. When that line is electrified it could be simpler to omit* the sea wall section of over head*. Trains could use battery power for the most exposed and problematic mile or two. *To avoid continual lowering and raising of the pantograph, it might be easier to install "dummy" overhead that is never live but that allows the pantograph to slide along without interruption.

In other words- the mother of all neutral sections.

 

[NSEFAN]

Thinking about it, the North Downs Line service could be extended, either to Oxford or down to Brighton. Doing so in either case would provide more time on electrified sections to recharge the battery.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Thinking about it, the North Downs Line service could be extended, either to Oxford or down to Brighton. Doing so in either case would provide more time on electrified sections to recharge the battery.

Might be a bit of a long wait for Oxford!

Seriously, the North Downs has been looked at for IPEMU but the present mileage limit for battery operation and the recharge time both kill it as a workable proposition. You also lose a traction pack to accomodate the batteries which makes it a tad sluggish for main line operation.

So the ND will remain Turbo for now unless Porterbrook come up with something (reasonably priced - hint, hint, Porterbrook) that can work on both diesel and electric........

 

[Elecman]

In the same way electric cars can re-charge on non-electrified roads. :roll:

Flipping big plug and sockets required then along with robust DNO supply in areas where they may not be readily or affordable available.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The idea of exceptionally high currents flowing through easily detached terminals scares me.

What, like a pantograph?

 

[najaB]

What, like a pantograph?

Well, pantographs are scary (keep well away) but the contract wire is a nice safe distance from the body of the train in case anything shorts out. And on AC they don't carry thousands of amps.

A battery pack under the solebar isn't, and does.

The proposal is to have these packs regularly removed and inserted, it's only a matter of time before some foreign material gets in the way.

 

[43021HST]

What, like a pantograph?

I was going to say the very same.

If we compare battery power, to the development of the internal combustion engine, for rail application. I'm sure at one point it was seen as not feasible except for very short journeys for rather light loads. Much like Battery power is currently seen as.

Battery power could eventually become a genuine viable alternative to electrification. I wouldn't be surprised if in even 5 years, battery power would be feasible.

Flipping big plug and sockets required then along with robust DNO supply in areas where they may not be readily or affordable available.

Yupp ...