Do IPEMUs mean the End of Electrification?

[najaB]

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.

I doubt it will ever be a viable alternative to large scale electrification, but it definitely will factor in last mile/branch line/infill operation.

However, battery replacement on the fly is fanciful. As I alluded to above, high-current connectors don't like being regularly plugged and unplugged. Also, batteries tend to be the expensive part of battery powered systems - having to provide multiple batteries per unit, plus the equipment to replace them will quickly eat into the savings of not electrifying routes.

If you want quickly rechargable stored energy systems you'd be better off considering hydrogen fuel cells, in my opinion.

 

[paul1609]

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!

The 379 IPEMU was only able to charge on 25Kv ac overhead. I believe there are all sorts of problems charging the batteries on 750 vdc. The unit would require additional shoes and heavy cabling and there would be short sections of 3rd rail where the unit would overload the supply cabling. Its unlikely that the charge rate would allow a recharge in 2 hours.

 

[rebmcr]

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.

That's a fair assessment, but I imagine this can be mitigated by some sort of automatic screw connection, around the conductor, which only becomes live if the screw is proven to be unobstructed and snugly fitted.

That would also ensure reliability from shaking loose underneath the train body.

 

[NSEFAN]

That's a fair assessment, but I imagine this can be mitigated by some sort of automatic screw connection, around the conductor, which only becomes live if the screw is proven to be unobstructed and snugly fitted.

That would also ensure reliability from shaking loose underneath the train body.

A Pacer dropping its engines is one thing. A large and probably rather warm LiPo dropping beneath a train would be rather more spectacular. hock:

The 379 IPEMU was only able to charge on 25Kv ac overhead. I believe there are all sorts of problems charging the batteries on 750 vdc. The unit would require additional shoes and heavy cabling and there would be short sections of 3rd rail where the unit would overload the supply cabling. Its unlikely that the charge rate would allow a recharge in 2 hours.

I can well believe it is an issue for DC routes. The cells might have to be distributed along the train, perhaps with some in each carriage, so that each carriage could have local shoes for charging.

 

[XDM]

The 379 IPEMU was only able to charge on 25Kv ac overhead. I believe there are all sorts of problems charging the batteries on 750 vdc. The unit would require additional shoes and heavy cabling and there would be short sections of 3rd rail where the unit would overload the supply cabling. Its unlikely that the charge rate would allow a recharge in 2 hours.

I was in Seville late last year & the new trams run for about 1.5km under a 750v overhead. Then when they get to the historic part of the ancient city the overhead disappears & they run for the last 1km( on the level & at about 20 mph) on batteries,& possibly capacitors. It works very well. At the unwired intermediate stop & terminus there is an 8 ft long overhead bar which they raise the pantograph to. I accept the low speed & level route means the power demand is low but I was with a rail engineer Spanish speaker who asked the 4 drivers in the circuit if it was reliable. They all said yes. So it's proven on a short line & could be scaled up for trips beyond Southern third rail territory.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Tesla have effectively abandoned their battery-swapping technology as the compromises involved aren't worthwhile when it'll be possible to add thousands of miles of range per hour within a few years.

The unique circumstances of the railway mean that overhead line electrification is much more suited than batteries on most routes. Batteries are better used to allow extra-long neutral sections in hard-to-electrify areas than to try to run a train along a plain line section with no impediment to OHLE.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was in Seville late last year & the new trams run for about 1.5km under a 750v overhead. Then when they get to the historic part of the ancient city the overhead disappears & they run for the last 1km( on the level & at about 20 mph) on batteries,& possibly capacitors. It works very well. At the unwired intermediate stop & terminus there is an 8 ft long overhead bar which they raise the pantograph to. I accept the low speed & level route means the power demand is low but I was with a rail engineer Spanish speaker who asked the 4 drivers in the circuit if it was reliable. They all said yes. So it's proven on a short line & could be scaled up for trips beyond Southern third rail territory.

Aren't Brum's trams going to be using this for a short city centre section?

 

[reddragon]

In the not too distant future, there will no longer be a need for any route to be electrified 100% and we are likely to move to a situation of charging sections at easy to supply locations without costly bridge works, in particular on branch lines and high cost to electrify infill sections.

Why is this?

Put simply, electric storage technology is developing so fast that most people are unaware of the near future of transportation changes. Within 5 years, diesel road vehicle production is likely to begin to cease, with diesels banned in cities and electric vehicles will begin to dominate, so rapid is the technological development going on. Nobody will want to buy a diesel car in 2020, if they are even still available by then.

The IPEMUs of the future are unlikely to have batteries as they are heavy; slow to charge and deteriorate. Instead, capacitors that can be charged up almost instantly will be used. Historically, capacitors held just 5% of the charge of a battery. Recent developments have improved this figure by 100 fold (5x a battery) and have the potential of a 10,000 fold (5000x battery) increase. In tests, the university was able to charge a smart phone in 3 seconds and use it for a week. Imagine that on cars, buses, HGVs & trains?

The limitation is of course providing all of that power so quickly, but I am sure a balanced approach of charging sections & non-electrified sections will see the end of new diesel trains and the conversion of most of the rest within 20 years. Even the new IEPs are likely to end their lives without diesel engines, with capacitors replacing them at some stage.

 

[NSEFAN]

In the not too distant future, there will no longer be a need for any route to be electrified 100% and we are likely to move to a situation of charging sections at easy to supply locations without costly bridge works, in particular on branch lines and high cost to electrify infill sections.

Why is this?

Put simply, electric storage technology is developing so fast that most people are unaware of the near future of transportation changes. Within 5 years, diesel road vehicle production is likely to begin to cease, with diesels banned in cities and electric vehicles will begin to dominate, so rapid is the technological development going on. Nobody will want to buy a diesel car in 2020, if they are even still available by then.

The IPEMUs of the future are unlikely to have batteries as they are heavy; slow to charge and deteriorate. Instead, capacitors that can be charged up almost instantly will be used. Historically, capacitors held just 5% of the charge of a battery. Recent developments have improved this figure by 100 fold (5x a battery) and have the potential of a 10,000 fold (5000x battery) increase. In tests, the university was able to charge a smart phone in 3 seconds and use it for a week. Imagine that on cars, buses, HGVs & trains?

The limitation is of course providing all of that power so quickly, but I am sure a balanced approach of charging sections & non-electrified sections will see the end of new diesel trains and the conversion of most of the rest within 20 years. Even the new IEPs are likely to end their lives without diesel engines, with capacitors replacing them at some stage.

Do you have any links to these new types of super capacitors? Whilst capacitors should have greater charging rates, are there any which will store hundreds of volts for heavy vehicles and have enough capacity to be a suitable replacement for diesel engines?

 

[Taunton]

A BR battery 2-car unit was built in the late 1950s. It operated perfectly well for about 10 years on the Aberdeen-Ballater line until that closed, when it was eagerly taken into departmental use, where it lasted many years longer

http://www.railcar.co.uk/data/vehicle/79998

If you think it looks just like a 1950s dmu with batteries instead of an engine, that's exactly what it was. Whole thing was a joint development between BR and the local Electricity Board, the only one in Britain (still) to make extensive use of hydro-electric power. The line is about 30 miles long, it suited because there were quite long layovers at each end where charging equipment was provided at the platforms. Two trains were required for the service, the other one was a comparable diesel unit. It's gently uphill going west into the mountains, and an easy downhill run coming back.

Now every few years since then I have read repeated stories that "battery technology has way improved in the last [few] years, and will improve immeasurably in the next [few] years. Despite which we seem no further advanced that we were 60 years ago. I long ago came to the conclusion that it's all just marketing hype. I know my current phone has a shorter battery life before going flat than the one I bought 15 years ago.

 

[najaB]

Whilst capacitors should have greater charging rates, are there any which will store hundreds of volts for heavy vehicles and have enough capacity to be a suitable replacement for diesel engines?

Mandatory pedantry: It's not the Volts that matter, it's the coulombs (or ampere hours).

Super capacitors are starting to appear in transport applications, the Wikipedia article has a few examples.

 

[HSTEd]

How much range do you want is the question?
2.2kWh/vehicle-km means the batteries get quite big quite quickly.

But the BEMU shows what can be achieved if you are willing to accept operational limitations.

 

[NSEFAN]

Mandatory pedantry: It's not the Volts that matter, it's the coulombs (or ampere hours).

Super capacitors are starting to appear in transport applications, the Wikipedia article has a few examples.

True, although boosting voltages is always a hassle (although much easier than it used to be). For a high power application it's preferable to have the voltage you need to hand, rather than needing a lower voltage (i.e. higher current) line to feed some kind of boost circuit.

 

[HSTEd]

True, although boosting voltages is always a hassle (although much easier than it used to be). For a high power application it's preferable to have the voltage you need to hand, rather than needing a lower voltage (i.e. higher current) line to feed some kind of boost circuit.

You can series connect capacitors - although the overall capacitance decreases the energy stored in each capacity remains the same.

The obvious way out of this is jsut to wind the motors for the lowest feasible voltage.

 

[reddragon]

Do you have any links to these new types of super capacitors? Whilst capacitors should have greater charging rates, are there any which will store hundreds of volts for heavy vehicles and have enough capacity to be a suitable replacement for diesel engines?

http://www.techworld.com/personal-t...cars-that-charge-in-minutes-possible-3651281/
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do you have any links to these new types of super capacitors? Whilst capacitors should have greater charging rates, are there any which will store hundreds of volts for heavy vehicles and have enough capacity to be a suitable replacement for diesel engines?

http://www.electricvehiclesresearch.com/articles/10346/dielectric-capacitor-to-beat-batteries

for the more technically minded!

 

[HSTEd]

If they can obtain the 60Wh/kg figure, the BEMU's ~17t of batteries would end up having a capacity of something like 1MWh.
Which would move a two car unit something like 200km.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Mandatory pedantry: It's not the Volts that matter, it's the coulombs (or ampere hours).

Super capacitors are starting to appear in transport applications, the Wikipedia article has a few examples.

Sorry a failed attempt to out pendant you.

Edited

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Mandatory pedantry: It's not the Volts that matter, it's the coulombs (or ampere hours).

I did not think you were being a pedant. Capacitors store charge - not current or voltage.

 

[DarloRich]

Do IPEMUs mean the End of Electrification?

no.

 

[NotATrainspott]

In the not too distant future, there will no longer be a need for any route to be electrified 100% and we are likely to move to a situation of charging sections at easy to supply locations without costly bridge works, in particular on branch lines and high cost to electrify infill sections.

Why is this?

Put simply, electric storage technology is developing so fast that most people are unaware of the near future of transportation changes. Within 5 years, diesel road vehicle production is likely to begin to cease, with diesels banned in cities and electric vehicles will begin to dominate, so rapid is the technological development going on. Nobody will want to buy a diesel car in 2020, if they are even still available by then.

The IPEMUs of the future are unlikely to have batteries as they are heavy; slow to charge and deteriorate. Instead, capacitors that can be charged up almost instantly will be used. Historically, capacitors held just 5% of the charge of a battery. Recent developments have improved this figure by 100 fold (5x a battery) and have the potential of a 10,000 fold (5000x battery) increase. In tests, the university was able to charge a smart phone in 3 seconds and use it for a week. Imagine that on cars, buses, HGVs & trains?

The limitation is of course providing all of that power so quickly, but I am sure a balanced approach of charging sections & non-electrified sections will see the end of new diesel trains and the conversion of most of the rest within 20 years. Even the new IEPs are likely to end their lives without diesel engines, with capacitors replacing them at some stage.

The problem is that charging a train up requires putting as much energy into its storage device as it's going to use before the next charge. Ultra-capacitors with several times the storage capacity of a battery and rapid charge times might be wonderful but they'll only be useful if you can get that amount of power delivered to the charging station. A considerable proportion of the cost of electrification is putting in the grid feeder stations; installing feeders capable of rapidly providing all the energy needed for a train to run self-powered for long distances will be even more expensive than providing one that just needs to give enough power for the train to move along the track. When you start putting in more intermediate charging sections along the route, you have more and more locations which need to have a power supply, so the cost saving versus simply wiring up the route in the first place goes down.

Railways and tramways are fundamentally different from other modes of transport for two reasons: 1. they only go in predictable lines and 2. with metal rails you have a return conductor available immediately. Road vehicles are far harder to electrify via overhead wires due to the need to move in two dimensions and the fact that they need a return conductor, thus complicating the overhead lines significantly. Together this means that for the vast majority of routes it's better to have inefficient batteries than inefficient overhead power delivery. For rail this balance is quite different. Trams are sort of in between, since there's lots of value in not installing overhead lines on street running sections; power is easily available along the route using the standard street supply to homes and businesses, and the speeds and distances between stops are low enough that energy use is minimal. As trains get heavier and faster and stop less often the balance shifts further towards continuous overhead electrification. The battery technologies can have a place in allowing longer neutral sections to lower the cost of the other engineering works involved in electrification.

 

[HSTEd]

A considerable proportion of the cost of electrification is putting in the grid feeder stations; installing feeders capable of rapidly providing all the energy needed for a train to run self-powered for long distances will be even more expensive than providing one that just needs to give enough power for the train to move along the track.

If that was ever true it most certainly isn't now - grid feeder stations appaer to be about the only thing that is coming in somewhat close to the estimates given in the Electrification RUS.

When you start putting in more intermediate charging sections along the route, you have more and more locations which need to have a power supply, so the cost saving versus simply wiring up the route in the first place goes down.

Assuming you don't just get a wayleave for an ordinary wood-pole overhead line linking the sections together.

 

[NotATrainspott]

If that was ever true it most certainly isn't now - grid feeder stations appaer to be about the only thing that is coming in somewhat close to the estimates given in the Electrification RUS.


Assuming you don't just get a wayleave for an ordinary wood-pole overhead line linking the sections together.

I remember Philip Phlopp explaining how expensive they were and they're really not cheap. If you want to run a battery railway then your feeder stations would need to be even more expensive, because they now need to provide enough power for trains to charge up rapidly. Then, your expensive grid supply will turn off when the charging trains drive away and run on their battery power. Instead of having a constant flow of moderate power you need to have bursts of very high power and then lots of nothing. This would have a very big effect on the electrical grid, even where you have lots of renewables available. I wouldn't be surprised if the power requirements for charging up a WHL train were greater than the total domestic supply to the town of Fort William. Of course, you can mitigate this by fitting yet more energy storage to the charging station, so that power from the grid goes into the static batteries and then rapidly shifts into the train when it charges, but then you've added even more cost and complexity. With more energy transfer stages the total efficiency goes down, further increasing costs, as well as increasing the possibility of failure. Overhead line equipment at 25kV AC is an incredibly efficient way of delivering power to trains.

Running power cables along the track means you are shifting the balance further towards the costs and benefits of traditional electrification. The more charging bits you have, the lower the power need for each, so your cables can be cheaper, but then you've got more of the charging areas. The locations of these charging areas can be problematic on many routes, as you can't necessarily guarantee that they'll be perfectly located in a static or station loop. If you have to charge while moving, then you're building standard OHLE for that section. I also doubt that providing a high-voltage traction supply along the track would be significantly cheaper than installing OHLE anyway. It's more efficient to try to fit such a linear thing along the existing linear railway land, following all of the existing curves and remaining accessible to maintenance crews using RRVs. Even if the land can be bought to cut corners, the curves in the railway often exist for good geographic or geological reasons, and you would need to ensure access along the non-railway section. Since you would be using RRVs for the rest of the maintenance along the linear railway, you would want to be able to access the non-railway sections with RRVs too for efficiency's sake. Your wood pole power line would need a similar amount of piling operations as overhead line gantries would and would take a similar amount of time. Once the pole is up, it would be efficient to be able to lay the cable using the RRVs rather than having to go up each and every one individually, so you would want to have the power cable hanging onto the railway track side. Once the mounting mechanisms are in place, you would want to be able to do as much automatically as you can and that would mean using cable barrels mounted on railway carriages, just like how OHLE is installed. Once you've gone to all this effort is there really any value in not allowing the train to pick up the power all of the way along and thus you don't have to spend extra money on a super-duper feeder station with balancing energy storage and trains fitted with heavy batteries or supercapacitors?

As I keep saying, when you reach a point where you have to raise a bridge or lower the track or rebuild a station or suchlike, simply put the 25kV into an insulated cable and let the trains use their limited battery power to run through the section. You save on the civil engineering cost of electrification with minimal compromise.

 

[HSTEd]

I remember Philip Phlopp explaining how expensive they were and they're really not cheap. If you want to run a battery railway then your feeder stations would need to be even more expensive, because they now need to provide enough power for trains to charge up rapidly.

But feeder stations, like most high voltage electrical substation equipment, tends to scale very well with increasing power output. So a 25kV supply point with twice the power does not cost twice the price.
And the minimum power that a 25kV GSP can normally support would be several megawatts in most cases.
A 2-car EMU could charge a 1MWh energy storage system in ten minutes (from entirely flat) with a 6MW power availability, which would not be enormously onerous to provide.

The enormous cost of the overhead lines on the modern railway have driven all other electrification costs into the background.
A twin track railway costs £5m per kilometre. GSPs cost a few tens of millions each at most, especially as this would be a relatively simple GSP with precisely one output circuit breaker since it only feeds the platform roads and not a complex feeding system with cross-feed potential.

Then, your expensive grid supply will turn off when the charging trains drive away and run on their battery power. Instead of having a constant flow of moderate power you need to have bursts of very high power and then lots of nothing. This would have a very big effect on the electrical grid, even where you have lots of renewables available. I wouldn't be surprised if the power requirements for charging up a WHL train were greater than the total domestic supply to the town of Fort William.

We are on the 132kV network now. It can handle spikes of a few megawatts with only relatively minor reinforcing work.
Then again a single phase pole line paralleling the railway outside the boundary fence is going to cost a tiny fraction of the cost of GSPs or total electrification. 2 Conductors connected antiphase into a 50kV circuit, with only an autotransformer (and probably a local circuit breaker) provided at each recharging station.

The connection to the grid can be made at a location where a single phase load of a few megawatts that comes and goes is extremely trivial, if it can even be noticed against background phase imbalances.

Even a 132kV wood-pole overhead line only costs on order of ~£100k/km. So a 25-0-25kV circuit is likely to be around this cost or less.

Running power cables along the track means you are shifting the balance further towards the costs and benefits of traditional electrification.

No it doesn't.
The cost of a line paralleling the railway outside the fence is a tiny fraction of the cost of electrification.

I also doubt that providing a high-voltage traction supply along the track would be significantly cheaper than installing OHLE anyway. It's more efficient to try to fit such a linear thing along the existing linear railway land, following all of the existing curves and remaining accessible to maintenance crews using RRVs.

Why the hell would it be on railway land?
You would put it in the field a hundred yards away, and it would follow the most efficient possible alignment between the charging points.
So it goes nowhere near the curves since it can just go over hills etc

Even if the land can be bought to cut corners, the curves in the railway often exist for good geographic or geological reasons, and you would need to ensure access along the non-railway section. Since you would be using RRVs for the rest of the maintenance along the linear railway, you would want to be able to access the non-railway sections with RRVs too for efficiency's sake.

Can't RRVs go anywhere where normal 4x4s can go?
How do you think the electricity grid does maintenance on power distribution systems?

Your wood pole power line would need a similar amount of piling operations as overhead line gantries would and would take a similar amount of time.

Normal spacing for 33kV circuits according to Scottish Power's uncontrolled specification is something like 100m.
I don't think we do that much on the railway, especially considering the curves.
Also piling a wooden pole in the middle of a field is somewhat less expensive than doing a steel or concrete post next to an active railway.

 

[43021HST]

Do IPEMUs mean the End of Electrification?

no.

Just to counter you're rather lengthy and well informed point:

of note is the following comment:

In the not too distant future, there will no longer be a need for any route to be electrified 100% and we are likely to move to a situation of charging sections at easy to supply locations without costly bridge works, in particular on branch lines and high cost to electrify infill sections.

Why is this?

Put simply, electric storage technology is developing so fast that most people are unaware of the near future of transportation changes. Within 5 years, diesel road vehicle production is likely to begin to cease, with diesels banned in cities and electric vehicles will begin to dominate, so rapid is the technological development going on. Nobody will want to buy a diesel car in 2020, if they are even still available by then.

The IPEMUs of the future are unlikely to have batteries as they are heavy; slow to charge and deteriorate. Instead, capacitors that can be charged up almost instantly will be used. Historically, capacitors held just 5% of the charge of a battery. Recent developments have improved this figure by 100 fold (5x a battery) and have the potential of a 10,000 fold (5000x battery) increase. In tests, the university was able to charge a smart phone in 3 seconds and use it for a week. Imagine that on cars, buses, HGVs & trains?

The limitation is of course providing all of that power so quickly, but I am sure a balanced approach of charging sections & non-electrified sections will see the end of new diesel trains and the conversion of most of the rest within 20 years. Even the new IEPs are likely to end their lives without diesel engines, with capacitors replacing them at some stage.

Also of note:

http://www.techworld.com/personal-t...cars-that-charge-in-minutes-possible-3651281/
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


http://www.electricvehiclesresearch.com/articles/10346/dielectric-capacitor-to-beat-batteries

for the more technically minded!

 

[Elecman]

Can 132kv grid circuits be installed on wooden poles, everyone I've seen has been on metal pylons

 

[HSTEd]

Can 132kv grid circuits be installed on wooden poles, everyone I've seen has been on metal pylons

Yes, they are relatively rare but they do exist - indeed you get a nice view of one going west of Exeter St Davids towards Cornwall.
Single wooden pole with splayed long insulators like a 'Trident'

 

[DarloRich]

Just to counter you're rather lengthy and well informed point:

You asked a simple question and got a simple answer.

Do hybrids mean the end of electrification. No. I don't think so. I actually think they make the chances of further electrification ( or at least partial electrification of routes) greater due to the service flexibility and business case boost they offer.

I do think the hybrid technology will move on from bolting a ford transit engine under a 30 year old train to something a bit more advanced but that will take time and greater technological advancement. For a rail use to be found for a stored energy system the technology will have to be stable and proven. It isnt. yet.

 

[daikilo]

Personally, I think stored power will actually increase the opportunities for electrification. We are already seeing tram systems with limitted or even zero overhead feed, and now buses with end-route charging. I would certainly want to see a study for the Cardiff valleys, be it heavy or light rail. I could well see e.g. are core OHLE network to say Pontypridd and Bargoed then end-route charging beyond. For Coryton, Penarth and Barry Island end-route may not be required, simply the stored energy.

My concern is how to fund and remove the risks from such a technology. Possibly we need a train manufacturer to step in in the way say Volvo or BYD are for electric buses. Tram manufacturers like Alstom are starting but does it make sense to be pushed into light rail when the heavy rail infrastructure exists?

 

[Bletchleyite]

TBH I think going full-on Metrolink-style[1] light rail would work well in the Valleys - but it'll cost, and I suspect shortening the OHLE a bit won't save all that much.

[1] Though I'd spec 4-"car" units as I would for Metrolink if I was speccing it now.

 

[43021HST]

You asked a simple question and got a simple answer.

Do hybrids mean the end of electrification. No. I don't think so. I actually think they make the chances of further electrification ( or at least partial electrification of routes) greater due to the service flexibility and business case boost they offer.

I do think the hybrid technology will move on from bolting a ford transit engine under a 30 year old train to something a bit more advanced but that will take time and greater technological advancement. For a rail use to be found for a stored energy system the technology will have to be stable and proven. It isnt. yet.

I'm sorry but brief answers like that do get my back up, it's contributes nothing to the discussion.

I think I stated in my OP that if this maybe a possibility in the future, given time and development, especially considering the advancements we're making with technology now, so it's rather brazen to write if off completely.

We'll probably see at first as many users have previously stated, it's application in very long, 'neutral sections' or lines where the geography won't permit, but given time and development, battery/capacitor technology may even replace full scale electrification completely.