Partial electrification of Midland Mainline with Battery-powered class 810 trains

[Nottingham59]

Dear Mr Sunak,

If the current fiscal crisis it is vitally important to reduce government spending, whilst still providing the investment in transport infrastructure that the county desperately needs. This proposal offers:

• A saving of half the capital cost of the fully electrifying the Midland Mainline (MML), i.e. a saving of around £500M.
• Allow electrification to be delivered in half the time
• Immediate investment in a Northern Powerhouse city, with its Red Wall constituencies
• Avoids electrifying known high cost or problematic locations.

BACKGROUND
The MML already has overhead line electrification (OHLE) from London to Kettering. This is currently being extended to Wigston, just south of Leicester. A further 80 miles of route are still to be electrified. The most problematic sections are: listed station buildings close above the tracks at Sheffield Leicester and Nottingham: the Derwent Valley, a World Heritage Site; and future changes to track layout necessary south of East Midlands Parkway (where HS2 will join the MML), and south of Leicester station, where additional capacity is required.

The class 810 trains on order for this route (part of the Hitachi AT-300 family) are bimodes, using both OHLE and four diesel engines in each five-car unit. Apart from diversionary routes and depot use, these engines will become redundant when and if the line is fully electrified.

Hitachi are currently developing a battery version of their class 800 802 train, closely related to the 810, for possible use on the GWR route from London to Penzance, as shown in the Hitachi graphic:


PROPOSAL
1. Further MML electrification should be funded only for two sections: firstly Sheffield-Chesterfield; and then Derby-East Midlands Parkway. These would save electrifyng two thirds of the remaining route miles but would still utilise the Grid Supply points already planned at Ratcliffe-on-Soar and at Chesterfield. This avoids all the problematic areas listed above.
2. Ask Hitachi to quote for supplying battery versions of the 810 trains, instead of diesel, starting with the second half of the fleet.
3. When the BEMUs are delivered, swap over two of the new battery units with two of the diesels in the first half of the fleet to create a uniform fleet of tri-mode 810s with two diesel engines and two battery packs in each.
4. Wire platforms 6 and 7 of Nottingham station, to allow batteries to be recharged there, fed by either a static frequency converter (SFC) from the local supply, or a 25kV cable laid along the side of the track from Kegworth.

ANALYSIS
We assume that an 810 tri-mode would have 90km battery range and 10-15 min recharging time, the same as the Hitachi AT200 Regional Battery Train, as shown in this Hitachi graphic:


A 55-mile range would be enough to comfortably bridge the 25-mile gaps between Wigston and EMD; and between Derby and Chesterfield.

The proposed wiring would also allow the use of BEMUs on many other routes in the region, including Liverpool-Nottingham (biggest gap 30 miles); Leeds-Nottingham (34 miles); Crewe-Newark (34 miles); Matlock-Nottingham (17 miles x2); and many local services around Sheffield. All with no further wiring needed.

And if it turns out that the battery conversion of the 810s is too expensive or not practical, they can always use the diesel engines as delivered instead, while a future administration could authorise the remaining OHLE on the MML when public finances improve.

Yours sincerely,

A bright new graduate entrant in the Department for Transport.

 

[D365]

Hmm... I thought that the "Intercity Tri-Mode" is a conversion of a Class 802 to serve as a demonstrator/trial for further AT300 conversions.

However, the infographic suggests that the self-powered mode of operation will be more akin to the TfW Class 230 hybrids.

 

[Nottingham59]

"Intercity Tri-Mode" is a conversion of a Class 802

Yes, you're right. Now edited. But I've not seen mention anywhere of how that trial is progressing. So I'm assuming the battery performance of the battery AT200, to get the discussion started. If a longer range is feasible, you don't have to wire EMD-Derby.

 

[D365]

Yes, you're right. Now edited. But I've not seen mention anywhere of how that trial is progressing. So I'm assuming the battery performance of the battery AT200, to get the discussion started. If a longer range is feasible, you don't have to wire EMD-Derby.

A lot of the work going on in that trial is confidential, so you won't hear anything until a press release is issued.

EMD-DBY, I thought that electrification would fall under HS2 scope.

 

[43096]

The most problematic sections are: listed station buildings close above the tracks at Sheffield and Nottingham: the Derwent Valley, a World Heritage Site; and future changes to track layout necessary south of East Midlands Parkway (where HS2 will join the MML), and south of Leicester station, where additional capacity is required.

PROPOSAL
1. Further MML electrification should be funded only for two sections: firstly Sheffield-Chesterfield; and then Derby-East Midlands Parkway. These would save electrifyng two thirds of the remaining route miles but would still utilise the Grid Supply points already planned at Ratcliffe-on-Soar and at Chesterfield. This avoids all the problematic areas listed above.
2. Ask Hitachi to quote for supplying battery versions of the 810 trains, instead of diesel, starting with the second half of the fleet.
3. When the BEMUs are delivered, swap over two of the new battery units with two of the diesels in the first half of the fleet to create a uniform fleet of tri-mode 810s with two diesel engines and two battery packs in each.
4. Wire platforms 6 and 7 of Nottingham station, to allow batteries to be recharged there, fed by either a static frequency converter (SFC) from the local supply, or a 25kV cable laid along the side of the track from Kegworth.

So Sheffield and Nottingham are problematic (read: expensive) to wire but you propose wiring them anyway! Oh, and that 25kV cable from Kegworth: how about laying it above the track so trains can use it for power.

Are you also proposing fitting HS2 trains with batteries for use when the wires end at East Midlands Parkway or Derby?

In short…

Dear Mr Sunak,

Please don’t think batteries are a credible alternative to mainline electrification. It’s just they’re this year‘s bionic duckweed (again). Hydrogen will be in vogue again shortly!

 

[Nottingham59]

So Sheffield and Nottingham are problematic

Sorry. Leicester and Nottingham. My mis-typing. And you can wire the platforms at Nottingham without having to wire under the concourse bridge.

MML electrification as it currently stands seems to have a BCR of less than 1. The whole programme is at risk.

 

[D365]

MML electrification as it currently stands seems to have a BCR of less than 1. The whole programme is at risk.

What successive governments have never recognised, is that a BCR of less than 1 on the railway, doesn't actually mean that there is zero net benefit...

 

[HSTEd]

1. Further MML electrification should be funded only for two sections: firstly Sheffield-Chesterfield; and then Derby-East Midlands Parkway. These would save electrifyng two thirds of the remaining route miles but would still utilise the Grid Supply points already planned at Ratcliffe-on-Soar and at Chesterfield. This avoids all the problematic areas listed above.

Doing it like this would result in a system where a failure at an GSP would take the entire route out of service because your trains would not be able to bridge the gap between the remaining sections.

No cross feeding would be possible, which is essential to the reliability of modern 25kV installations.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Nov 2022 ==

MML electrification as it currently stands seems to have a BCR of less than 1. The whole programme is at risk.

Desperate cuts to the programme like this are extremely unlikely to rescue the BCR.

If the electrification is too expensive we have to take a long hard look at the insane corporate structures that have botched scheme after scheme since privatisation.

 

[Sonik]

What successive governments have never recognised, is that a BCR of less than 1 on the railway, doesn't actually mean that there is zero net benefit...

Exactly, as it stands the BCR of the MML scheme doesn't (yet) take into account the integration of MML into the HS2 network.

Ignoring that would (rightly or wrongly) require the government to acknowledge that the basis of the IRP was flawed, and no doubt plenty would take the opportunity to pull them up on it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Nov 2022 ==

Dear Mr Sunak,

Please don’t think batteries are a credible alternative to mainline electrification. It’s just they’re this year‘s bionic duckweed (again). Hydrogen will be in vogue again shortly!

100% agree!

 

[Nottingham59]

a BCR of less than 1 on the railway, doesn't actually mean that there is zero net benefit..

It means there is a negative net benefit after costs. Remember that "costs" in this context are the capital costs reduced by the running costs saved over 60 years. All discounted to a net present value. The "Benefits" are the wider societal benefits. 2Any scheme that actually has a positive NPV is described as having an infinite BCR.

Doing it like this would result in a system where a failure at an GSP would take the entire route out of service because your trains would not be able to bridge the gap between the remaining sections.

Yes, usually that would be the case. But these 810s have two diesel engines in each 5-car unit, so you get redundancy that way.

Desperate cuts to the programme like this are extremely unlikely to rescue the BCR

If you halve the capital investment required, and still get the societal benefits, it can improve the benefit-cost ratio immensely

Please don’t think batteries are a credible alternative to mainline electrification.

The numbers say otherwise.

 

[D365]

The numbers say otherwise.

What numbers? Is the technology really ’there’ for batteries to supplement 125mph operation? What are we trying to achieve with hybrid vehicles?

The scope hasn’t been fully defined.

 

[Sonik]

The numbers say otherwise.

That wasn't the conclusion of the Audit Commission, in respect of the GWEP curtailment.

Bi-modes are significantly more expensive in the long term, IIRC in the case of GWEP, about four times the cost of completing the electrification.

It's only a 'saving' because the additional cost falls in someone else's budget.

 

[Nottingham59]

Is the technology really ’there’ for batteries to supplement 125mph operation?

Trains only run at 125mph on the MML in places that are already electrified. According to https://railmap.azurewebsites.net/Public/SpeedsMap , there's a bit of 120mph running from near Syston to near Loughborough. Then 110mph or less. North of Clay Cross, linespeeds are 90mph or less.

I don't know what speeds battery trains will be able to achieve in ten years time, but I do think the DfT should work that out before committing funds to electrify the whole route.

What are we trying to achieve with hybrid vehicles?

We already have hybrid vehicles being built for this route: 810s are electric-diesel hybrids, with a high cost associated with them to accommodate that bimode capability, compared with a pure EMUs.

Diesel-battery-electric trimode 810s will minimise emissions whilst saving the avoidable cost of full electrification.

That wasn't the conclusion of the Audit Commission, in respect of the GWEP curtailment.

Bi-modes are significantly more expensive in the long term, IIRC in the case of GWEP, about four times the cost of completing the electrification.

Always ready to be corrected. What report was that? The NAO report Modernising the Great Western railway from Nov 2016 doesn't seem to refer specifically to the costs of curtailment. https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Modernising-the-Great-Western-railway-Summary.pdf

The public accounts committee say (Feb 2017) they don't believe DfTs assurances that "curtailing electrification to Bristol Temple Meads .... would be entirely or largely unaffected by the decision to defer electrification of some sections by using trains that can operate both under electric and diesel power". https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmpubacc/776/776.pdf
I don't know which side is right. Who do you believe?

== == ==
What concerns me particularly about the full MML electrification is that NR/DfT have not published a financial or business case for it; and nobody can tell me what the BCR is for the project.

The MML has just two trains per hour north of Derby that will be able to use OHLE, and they will already have 4x1000hp diesel engines which could be used instead. So the financial case for electrification will be awful, and the wider passenger benefits will be neglible. The only benefits will be environmental, which I say can be achieved with battery operation instead.

As for the HS2 eastern arm, if gets built the long-distance traffic to London will go via HS2, so electrification between East Midlands and Wigston will be wasted. And if the arm is dropped, there will be no additional traffic to help justify electrification north of Derby.

 

[Sonik]

Always ready to be corrected. What report was that? The NAO report Modernising the Great Western railway from Nov 2016 doesn't seem to refer specifically to the costs of curtailment. https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Modernising-the-Great-Western-railway-Summary.pdf

Was later than that, sorry can't find it now, maybe it wasn't NAO. Will keep looking.

IIRC essentially the cost breakdown showed that additional engines, fuel and maintenance would cost about £2b over the lifetime of the trains, vs £470m odd saving for canceling the electrification to Swansea.

Not present value of course but inflation doesn't make it any better AFAICS

 

[InTheEastMids]

The MML has just two trains per hour north of Derby that will be able to use OHLE

This ignores the "network effects" that the infrastructure will be available as other users of the route can take advantage
(e.g. Chesterfield sees 6 passenger trains / hour in each direction of which 2 are EMR Intercity)

Please don’t think batteries are a credible alternative to mainline electrification. It’s just they’re this year‘s bionic duckweed (again)

Agree and disagree. Agree they're being overhyped.
However, probably will be more significant than many expect (although I suspect it's as much squeezing the opportunity for hydrogen as substituting for OHLE)

In fact, it sort of strengthens the case for full MML wiring, because if you're expecting to use batteries + discontinuous electrification for lower traffic areas, then charging on the busier MML seems like the sensible thing in order to run on batteries on quieter routes like Erewash Valley, Hope Valley, Derby-Stoke and so on.

 

[Nottingham59]

if you're expecting to use batteries + discontinuous electrification for lower traffic areas, then charging on the busier MML seems like the sensible thing in order to run on batteries on quieter routes like Erewash Valley, Hope Valley, Derby-Stoke and so on.

Totally agree. That's why I'm proposing to electrify SHf-CHD; DBY-EMD; and over the platforms at NOT. That should be enough to catch all of those you mention (plus a lot of others), with just one third of the route miles of full MML electrification.

The only outstanding question is whether an 810 with two engines and two battery packs will perform well enough across the 25-mile gaps on the MML?

 

[43074]

Sorry. Leicester and Nottingham. My mis-typing. And you can wire the platforms at Nottingham without having to wire under the concourse bridge.

MML electrification as it currently stands seems to have a BCR of less than 1. The whole programme is at risk.

The whole programme is at risk according to whom? I was under the impression the MML had a strong BCR, the only reason Great Western was electrified first was because of Crossrail and the politics of getting electrification to Wales.

Using batteries instead of diesel for the Leicester Gap would be something I could get behind though, but it isn't a credible alternative for the high speed sections elsewhere.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Nov 2022 ==

As for the HS2 eastern arm, if gets built the long-distance traffic to London will go via HS2, so electrification between East Midlands and Wigston will be wasted. And if the arm is dropped, there will be no additional traffic to help justify electrification north of Derby.

I think that's a bit dramatic, there's still plenty of traffic between Leicester/Derby and Nottingham which would benefit from it, plus the freight terminal at Mountsorrel and the fact Leicester itself generates a significant amount of London traffic (second only to Nottingham on EMR Intercity IIRC) so it hardly becomes a branch line post HS2...

 

[InTheEastMids]

Using batteries instead of diesel for the Leicester Gap would be something I could get behind though

Just checking people's understanding of what we're talking about here.

There is at least some received wisdom that London Road Bridge is an immovable block. However this post, for example, cites what appears to be a good source saying it can be done using methods already demonstrated elsewhere https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-should-it-be-done.239158/page-2#post-5915938.

I understand this section is being de-prioritised because electrification needs to be integrated with what (if anything) is to be done about capacity between Wigston and Syston in the post-Covid world, and there's potential impacts on that from whatever happens with HS2 Ph2b, Midlands Engine Rail, Felixstowe-Nuneaton freight and the possibility that Ivanhoe RYR work produces something positive.

 

[Sonik]

There is at least some received wisdom that London Road Bridge is an immovable block. However this post, for example, cites what appears to be a good source saying it can be done using methods already demonstrated elsewhere https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-should-it-be-done.239158/page-2#post-5915938.

I have also seen a couple of other 'insider' posters on this forum confidently state that it's really not an issue and will be wired.

It's been raised several times on the MML Electrification thread and always gets shot down.

 

[Nottingham59]

I was under the impression the MML had a strong BCR,

It only had a strong BCR when comparing pure EMU against keeping diesels for 60 years. This was because the 4tph would be able to use the OHLE to Bedford, which they assumed would not need upgrading.

What the calculations did not consider was the option to run bimodes. AIUI, when they compared full electrification against bimodes, the business case fell apart, because bimodes could exploit the OHLE to Bedford. Which is why EMR have ordered 810s and MML electrification got 'paused'.

There is at least some received wisdom that London Road Bridge is an immovable block.

Many posters with inside knowledge say that the bridges at Nottingham and Leicester stations can be electrified. I understand these will need special measures, like non-conducting coatings on the structure, because they can't lower the track so near to the platforms.

The main reason I proposed not wiring Leicester because the track layout is subject to change, so a risk that electrification would have to be done twice.

I understand this section is being de-prioritised because electrification needs to be integrated with what (if anything) is to be done about capacity between Wigston and Syston in the post-Covid world, and there's potential impacts on that from whatever happens with HS2 Ph2b, Midlands Engine Rail, Felixstowe-Nuneaton freight and the possibility that Ivanhoe RYR work produces something positive.

Yep.

Can we perhaps find common ground and agree that the next section of MML electrification should be Chesterfield to Sheffield? Or Derby to East Midlands, if you prefer, lol.

Those seem to have the lowest risk of re-configuration; and would give more time for decisions to be made about track layouts at Wigston-Leicester; the HS2 junction; and Trent East (which the IRP says it will require grade separation if HS2 Ph2 gets built).

And would give more time to assess the scope for battery powerpacks on the EMR 810s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What exactly is used in the BCR of electrification schemes? Does it include "psychological" stuff like "why shouldn't I drive my electric car when the railway is still using filthy diesels?" - something which will increasingly be a problem?

 

[MattRat]

The MML has just two trains per hour north of Derby that will be able to use OHLE, and they will already have 4x1000hp diesel engines which could be used instead. So the financial case for electrification will be awful, and the wider passenger benefits will be neglible. The only benefits will be environmental, which I say can be achieved with battery operation instead.

As for the HS2 eastern arm, if gets built the long-distance traffic to London will go via HS2, so electrification between East Midlands and Wigston will be wasted. And if the arm is dropped, there will be no additional traffic to help justify electrification north of Derby.

Don't forget the possibility of any currently full diesel trains that could be replaced with bi modes thanks to electrification.

 

[Nottingham59]

What exactly is used in the BCR of electrification schemes?

As I understand it, the "Cost" in the BCR calculations is the Net Present Value (NPV) of all the cashflows associated with the investment decision. So for electrification, the main cost will be the actial cost to the exchequer of putting up the wires, but this will be reduced by the savings from less maintenance or electric trains and purchasing of cheaper EMUs over the lifetime of the project. This is usually 60 years, but some HS2 assessments give a 100 year figure also. Future cashflows are discounted by a discount factor each year to account for the cost of borrowing money and to discount the risks that future financial benefits never materialise.

So if an electrification scheme were to cost say £1bn, and resulted in savings of £50M per year in less maintenance and cheaper rolling stock, and maybe higher ticket revenues, then the payback period for that investment will be 20 years and the NPV of the whole project will likely be positive, depending on the discount factor used, and the assessed "Cost" will be less than zero. This would give rise to an "infinite" Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR). A positive NPV would be needed for any commercial business to make the investment, but it is very rare for railway investments to show a positive NPV; most have an actual non-negative cost.

To justify this actual cost, you have to consider the wider public benefits of the investment. Consider a new road bypass; this has lots of social benefits like time saved by drivers and a cleaner environment for residents. These can be quantified and set against the Cost. Normally, the assessed "Benefits" need to be twice the assessed "Costs" for a transport scheme to be considered good value for money. Any investment with a BCR of less than one is by definition a waste of money.

Most railway investments have a pretty poor BCR. They often have to include Wider Economic Impacts (WEIs) to boost the BCR figures, but I doubt if the rules (I think they're called the Green Book) would include "psychological stuff" like you mention.

I'll dig up some actual examples from the MML and add these to this post.

HTH
== == == == == ==
EDIT:
I found this (which I've never seen before) that talks about the BCRs of the three electrification projects which were cancelled in 2017:

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Investigation-into-the-Department-for-Transports-decision-to-cancel-three-rail-electrification-projects.pdf

Also this post, by some lunatic BCR obsessive on these forums, points to other reports of railway BCR calculations:

The Growth Plan - Rail Projects

Cambridge South Infrastructure Enhancement A proposed four platform station and associated infrastructure improvements to support the growth and development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC) and Southern Fringe development area. Northumberland Line The opening of the Northumberland Line...

www.railforums.co.uk