Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
All new EMUs should be fitted with at least a small traction battery - say 100kWh for a 4-car EMU. Enough to self rescue from an extended neutral section. (And enough to get it up to 100mph a couple of times, or to climb a 100m hill, and/or absorb the kinetic energy of braking from linespeed to zero.) Would save a lot of capital expenditure on electrification projects by allowing many more neutral sections under low bridges, and the cost of wiring sidings and depots etc.
Once you've got a 100kWh battery in the design, it costs very little extra to provide a decent sized traction battery - say 1MWh per four car unit. Enough to provide 50-80 miles of range, judging from the ~500kWh battery used in 802207 on the TPE battery trial.
Some of these longer range BEMUs should be fitted with a small diesel range extender, capable of running on HVO biodiesel. A 100kW diesel (small family car size) would be enough on a 4-car BEMU to give unlimited operating range. Perhaps two such engines, for redundancy.
We should then focus electrification on those routes that can't be serviced by an BEMU fleet meeting the above. This means in order:
High speed lines (125mph running, e.g. Chippenham-Box, Birmingham-Derby);
High intensity lines (6 or 8tph, e.g. Didcot-Oxford, Filton Bank).
City centre stations as recharging hubs for local BEMU services (e.g. Sheffield, Bristol TM)
Longer routes with higher speed running (110mph+, e.g. MML north; Berks & Hants)
Battery Recharging sections on longer provincial routes with lower speeds (e.g. Newton Abbot to Penzance)
Lines where freight speed up gradients is an important constraint (e.g. Felixstowe)
I'd take closing Heysham to passengers in return for wiring and a clockface half hourly service from Lancaster to Morecambe. ...
Wire to Barrow too and that would get rid of all the diesel islands round there.
Or it makes sense to use batteries eliminating the capital cost of the overheads given that there are already overheads available to charge at one end of the route.
I'm not anti overheads I just have a balanced view that future electrification should be based on deployment of both Battery bi modes and OHLE as appropriate to the route rather than preferring one over the over.
I'm all for expanding OHLE on the likes of transpennine, MML to Sheffield etc. I also don't think it's worth spending millions on electrification of a lower use branch line where battery trains can do the job freeing funding for other lines instead.
If we want to replace all diesel trains we will need to use both technologies to achieve it. Battery bi modes allow the expansion of the benefits of any future OHLE over a much expanded area greatly increasing the BCR making future schemes more likely.
Turning the question around, it seems so many on here view battery trains as somehow a bad thing which I don't understand at all. Both technologies have a place in the future off making railways better, cheaper and greener.
In terms of maintenance costs they are cheaper for a BEMU than a DMU and only marginally more expensive than an EMU.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I know the costs for batteries from grid storage sites and it's quite low. I can't imagine that the cost of maintaining a few battery packs is higher than 10 miles of OHLE and associated equipment.
I'm not anti overheads I just have a balanced view that future electrification should be based on deployment of both Battery bi modes and OHLE as appropriate to the route rather than preferring one over the over.
I'm all for expanding OHLE on the likes of transpennine, MML to Sheffield etc. I also don't think it's worth spending millions on electrification of a lower use branch line where battery trains can do the job freeing funding for other lines instead.
If we want to replace all diesel trains we will need to use both technologies to achieve it. Battery bi modes allow the expansion of the benefits of any future OHLE over a much expanded area greatly increasing the BCR making future schemes more likely.
Turning the question around, it seems so many on here view battery trains as somehow a bad thing which I don't understand at all. Both technologies have a place in the future off making railways better, cheaper and greener.
In terms of maintenance costs they are cheaper for a BEMU than a DMU and only marginally more expensive than an EMU.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I know the costs for batteries from grid storage sites and it's quite low. I can't imagine that the cost of maintaining a few battery packs is higher than 10 miles of OHLE and associated equipment.
Well then you also got to consider the additional weight trains will have to hold thanks to all those batteries. With overhead wires this wouldn’t be a problem and you would be able to run trains without batteries on the line. Batteries work best on branch lines without through service or lines with low ridership.
Yes. I have looked at it and thought about for many hours over the last 5 years or so. It is fairly low down on my list of priorities for spending money.
Yes. I have looked at it and thought about for many hours over the last 5 years or so. It is fairly low down on my list of priorities for spending money.
Understandable but when you have opportunities like this where there is already a project planned on nearby rail line then they may aswell include electrification to Windermere.
Understandable but when you have opportunities like this where there is already a project planned on nearby rail line then they may aswell include electrification to Windermere.
Look, I swear to you, if it were to happen I would be leaping for joy and by then I will be retired back to the UK and I would photograph the hell out of the project and also leap for joy. However, I am trying to be a realist not an optimist!
Look, I swear to you, if it were to happen I would be leaping for joy and by then I will be retired back to the UK and I would photograph the hell out of the project and also leap for joy. However, I am trying to be a realist not an optimist!
Decades of carting around unnecessary and expensive to maintain equipment, just to avoid electrifying the last few percent of a largely electrified route.
Exactly. Having to change from 25kv to battery then back several times a day each time the Windermere branch is used is not failsafe whereas continuous 25kv is almost 100% failsafe.
It is only a few miles of single line low cost tram wire electrification not needing additional feeding stations taking 3 months at most to wire. Get on with it and convert the Manchesters to EMUs that Northern already have now costing less than a roundabout on the A1079 near Hull. (£43M)
Does anybody know the real cost of extending 25kv to Windermere?
Well then you also got to consider the additional weight trains will have to hold thanks to all those batteries. With overhead wires this wouldn’t be a problem and you would be able to run trains without batteries on the line. Batteries work best on branch lines without through service or lines with low ridership.
Well the Hitachi 80x testing would suggest it's no worse than DMU'S given the weight was the same for a standard 80x versus their battery modified one.
NON. It was formerly dual track until singled in the 1970s when the line was centred on the formation where there was an arched bridge. That is another positive to electrification that I didn't consider. It lowers the cost even more.
To be honest the north-south bias shows quite clearly when you see that they did St Albans Abbey but not Windermere despite Windermere having far more traffic potential (e.g. for through services from Euston for tourists, particularly in the 80s when far more of that went on) but being otherwise similar. (St Albans Abbey carries tiny loadings - a 153 would be plenty, indeed despite the wires I think Class 150s did show up from time to time in Silverlink days, but a 4-car EMU is used because it's easier).
St Albans Abbey was electrified to remove an island of disesel operation in an otherwise entirely electric area. Even then it needed Chris Green to force it through with some, ahem, creative accounting. This isn’t the case for Windermere.
Even if the Northern order includes "a quantity" of battery trains, would it not be better to use those on routes with little sensible alternative to battery operation, rather than a stub of a largely electrified route that could be done easily.
Five years ago I was an out and out overhead line electrification (OHLE) enthusiast too, now I'm in favour of limited/discontinuous OHLE and OHLE/battery hybrid trains. Windermere is ideal for OHLE/battery hybrid trains, with plenty of opportunity to recharge on through running to/from Preston or further.
The UK has finite resources, both financial and people with the necessary skills to do OHLE projects. Installation of OHLE is very expensive and should only be done where it delivers lots of bang for each buck, contributing significantly to UK economic growth. OHLE might help boost the sales of a few cake chops in Windermere, but it is not going contribute significantly to UK economic growth. The same benefit to those cake shops can be achieved with OHLE/battery hybrid trains that have a much lower upfront capital cost and don't tie up skilled OHLE people who could be working on more worthwhile projects.
One point not mentioned so far is that about half of the Windermere branch is in the Lake District National Park. The first ever NIMBY was the Lakeland poet William Wordsworth, and he wrote this poem about 180 years ago, before the line was constructed:
Is then no nook of English ground secure
From rash assault? Schemes of retirement sown
In youth, and 'mid the busy world kept pure
As when their earliest flowers of hope were blown,
Must perish; — how can they this blight endure?
And must he too the ruthless change bemoan
Who scorns a false utilitarian lure
'Mid his paternal fields at random thrown?
Baffle the threat, bright Scene, from Orrest-head
Given to the pausing traveller's rapturous glance:
Plead for thy peace, thou beautiful romance
Of nature; and, if human hearts be dead,
Speak, passing winds; ye torrents, with your strong
And constant voice, protest against the wrong.
Even if the Northern order includes "a quantity" of battery trains, would it not be better to use those on routes with little sensible alternative to battery operation, rather than a stub of a largely electrified route that could be done easily.
Lot 2 - Multimode Multiple Unit (Diesel + Battery + Electric with potential to convert or direct build to Electric + Battery Electric) Phase 1
44 x 3 car
66 x 4 car Phase 2
30 x 3 car
20 x 4 car
The Northern order is mostly battery trains (especially phase 1, where only 7.3% of the carriages are under lot 1, which could be battery units ordered under lot 2 anyway!)
Edit 23:09 16/01/2025 - Had Lot 2 Phase 1 3 cars at 33 instead of 44, now corrected
Five years ago I was an out and out overhead line electrification (OHLE) enthusiast too, now I'm in favour of limited/discontinuous OHLE and OHLE/battery hybrid trains. Windermere is ideal for OHLE/battery hybrid trains, with plenty of opportunity to recharge on through running to/from Preston or further.
The UK has finite resources, both financial and people with the necessary skills to do OHLE projects. Installation of OHLE is very expensive and should only be done where it delivers lots of bang for each buck, contributing significantly to UK economic growth. OHLE might help boost the sales of a few cake chops in Windermere, but it is not going contribute significantly to UK economic growth. The same benefit to those cake shops can be achieved with OHLE/battery hybrid trains that have a much lower upfront capital cost and don't tie up skilled OHLE people who could be working on more worthwhile projects.
One point not mentioned so far is that about half of the Windermere branch is in the Lake District National Park. The first ever NIMBY was the Lakeland poet William Wordsworth, and he wrote this poem about 180 years ago, before the line was constructed:
There will be more OHLE, but it won't be to Windermere.
The Northern order is mostly battery trains (especially phase 1, where only 7.8% of the carriages are under lot 1, which could be battery units ordered under lot 2 anyway!)
Based on that the Wigan-Bolton electrification (a much shorter distance than to Windermere) will have taken 4 years by the time trains actually start runing (green light given Sep 2021), and the fact that the 755s only took 3 years from order (August 2016) to operation (July 2019), it could well be possible that even if Windermere electrification was given the green light today, the new units would arrive and be operating first.
If Vincent Raven's electrification plans hadn't come to a halt after WW1 I doubt we'd be having this conversation. Shildon to Teesside electrified by 1915 with more to have come - 110 years ago.
However the technology has moved on and practical battery options combined with wired sections seem to be more suitable for the Windermere line. Reading between the tender lines Northern appear to be keeping options open. As any new stock won't be deployed in force before 2030, and in service until 2060/70, a lot can have happened by then.
Hopefully MML electrification will have reached Sheffield by the late 2030s so BEMU would suit Nottingham - Leeds. Other deployment options will become possible. I note the Hope Valley route was optimistically being promised electrification by the previous government. That's unlikely to happen soon but bring in BEMUs with limited wiring and that becomes a possibility.
My objection to overhead wiring is the seemingly frequent occasions when wires are brought down blocking all traffic for hours. With a decent capacity battery more trains can potentially move round such obstructions.
The weight of a megawatt hour of traction batteries (or more!) is not going to significantly change the weight of the train. I would not expect it to make a measurable difference to track wear or other maintenance requirements.
If we were in the 1980s and electrification was cheap, I would see the advantages of just electrifying and being done with it.
Unfortunately we don't live in that world any more, 25kV electrification is expensive now.
Well, I’ve done electrification projects. Planned, managed, done work on site. I’ve also maintained OLE. And dealt with the consequences when the stuff has come down.
I’ll freely admit I haven’t put batteries on trains, nor bought or maintained battery trains. But I have been in factories where trains are (or were) built and plenty of other places seeing them maintained, and seen for myself what is hard about building and maintaining them. And I do know people who have been involved in battery trains, including someone at Hitachi involved in the 802 trial (which I like to think came about because I suggested such a trial to him 4 years ago, but I’m fairly sure they had their own idea!).
So:
1) OLE is not a quick win. It needs designing. It will need some tricky discussions and potentially planning approvals from the local authorities and National Park. Most importantly it would cost at least £30m, and that would make it by far the cheapest electrification in this country per single track km for over a decade, even if you forget about inflation (of which we have had much in that time). And to persuade the Treasury to spend £30m they would want to know it was value for money, and, very importantly, if they could get a similar benefit for lower cost. Which is where battery trains come in.
2) ‘Fitting batteries to trains’ is not difficult, nor expensive. Every train in service today has batteries, albeit mostly not for traction. Fitting some more, albeit larger ones, would just be another part of construction. Compared to the other parts of train construction, such as wiring up a cab or installing all the wiring looms and connecting them up, fitting bigger batteries and an extra set of control electronics is frankly straightforward. And once in, they essentially need zero maintenance.
I really am no expert, but if the additional cost of a decent traction battery on a new 4 car EMU is £1m, and that feels pessimistic*, then you could buy 30 battery equipped EMUs (compared to new EMUs), use half a dozen on the Windermere service, and still have another 24 to electrify whole other lines of route in the north, and therefore be well up on the deal.
*You can buy the batteries needed for a 4 car EMU to have c100km range for about half a million pounds, and they come gift wrapped in a dozen brand new Teslas.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
A quick google suggests around a dozen overbridges, some of which will be clear, but some definitely won’t be. There’s also several level crossings (highway, footpath, bridleway and private), and lots and lots of trees.
Except it isn't really. It would have been perfectly possible to operate it using a Bletchley DMU (indeed I think on occasions it still was even after electrification - on occasions the DMUs even did Sunday morning Bletchley-Euston locals, though sadly I never managed to ride one). Though perhaps the view then was that the Marston Vale was likely to close and the GOBLIN be electrified (as it eventually was) then it really would be a diesel island?
Except it isn't really. It would have been perfectly possible to operate it using a Bletchley DMU (indeed I think on occasions it still was even after electrification - on occasions the DMUs even did Sunday morning Bletchley-Euston locals, though sadly I never managed to ride one). Though perhaps the view then was that the Marston Vale was likely to close and the GOBLIN be electrified (as it eventually was) then it really would be a diesel island?
Perhaps more "CG wanted it to be so, and it was so". He had a lot of power!
add to this "and limited gradient changes". The ascent from Kendal to Oxenholme is steep (as is Plumpton to Lindal for those battery advocates of the Barrow line.
Genuine question ... could a battery loco feasibly be used to drag an EMU between Oxenholme and Windermere? Or abandon through services, simply have EMU to Manxhester, and battery unit between Oxenholme and Windermere.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
