Ideas for future battery-electric (BEMU) units based on GWR Class 230 technology

[martin butler]

Longer term, what's the plan, is it to just prove the system works, and that its robust enough to become the basis for further development, with it trialed on other lines operated by GWR, Or just a one off, As GWR already own other 230 stock, might we see a couple of other demonstrators, that then get trialed say in Cornwall, say on the Loo branch?

Then maybe a 3rd rail/ Battery Demonstrator that can be trialed on the Reading to Gatwick service to test collecting, and recharging power via the 3rd rail then once demonstrated its going to work and not blow the fuses, that technology can be built into a new generation of battery/ overhead / 3rd rail EMU's to replace the dmus ?

Note to mods, if you think this post should be in another thread, please move it.

 

[martin butler]

Would the DFT fund, another unit, just for exploring if battery units can operate off 3rd rail, not just to provide traction but inbuilt charging, to prove the system would be viable,

If another 3 car unit, was sanctioned, but was 3rd rail and battery, it could be trialed on the north downs line, Ore to Ashford, and Uckfield lines, to see what kind of batttery power would be needed, and how fast recharging would take,

 

[Peter Sarf]

Would the DFT fund, another unit, just for exploring if battery units can operate off 3rd rail, not just to provide traction but inbuilt charging, to prove the system would be viable,

If another 3 car unit, was sanctioned, but was 3rd rail and battery, it could be trialed on the north downs line, Ore to Ashford, and Uckfield lines, to see what kind of batttery power would be needed, and how fast recharging would take,

Ore to Ashford and other branches would be akin to West Ealing to Greenford in operation.
So could be a use for the remaining 230s/D78s and the technology so far demonstrated.

I suppose Uckfield from London is more akin to North Downs BUT I cannot not see 230s sharing the lines to London Bridge !. But it is a slightly different use case than demonstrated by 230001. Furthermore there is most likely not enough D78s around to convert. So those routes will wait for the future GWR BEMU.

Discussion around other uses might be drifting the thread off topic so we better stop there.

 

[frankmoh]

I suppose Uckfield from London is more akin to North Downs BUT I cannot not see 230s sharing the lines to London Bridge !

It also doesn't help that the 230 has a much lower top speed than a 171 so it possibly couldn't use the fast Brighton lines.

For the GWR 230 I think the Slough-Windsor line is a good fit to try BEMUs on.

 

[martin butler]

Ore to Ashford and other branches would be akin to West Ealing to Greenford in operation.
So could be a use for the remaining 230s/D78s and the technology so far demonstrated.

I suppose Uckfield from London is more akin to North Downs BUT I cannot not see 230s sharing the lines to London Bridge !. But it is a slightly different use case than demonstrated by 230001. Furthermore there is most likely not enough D78s around to convert. So those routes will wait for the future GWR BEMU.

Discussion around other uses might be drifting the thread off topic so we better stop there.

That's why I believe that it would make sense to have another unit, using some of the redundant stock, to act as a test bed for a battery/ 3rd rail unit, to prove the concept of recharging batteries whilst running on 3rd rail as well as having fast charge capability. Via the centre pickup so that recharging stations could also be an option for non-electrified sections of line

Ideally to prove the system, that could then find its way into a new design of BEMU, and to prove, or disprove the idea of a battery/ 3rd rail emu, to replace the use of DMU's

The design could use the 484, as a base, and build on that with the battery packs. and associated software as fitted to 230001

 

[Peter Sarf]

That's why I believe that it would make sense to have another unit, using some of the redundant stock, to act as a test bed for a battery/ 3rd rail unit, to prove the concept of recharging batteries whilst running on 3rd rail as well as having fast charge capability. Via the centre pickup so that recharging stations could also be an option for non-electrified sections of line

Ideally to prove the system, that could then find its way into a new design of BEMU, and to prove, or disprove the idea of a battery/ 3rd rail emu, to replace the use of DMU's

The design could use the 484, as a base, and build on that with the battery packs. and associated software as fitted to 230001

I think a 230 would be a better basis for a 3rd rail plus battery fast charge test. I assume the 484s do not have fittings for rafts - be that battery or engine. Plus the fast charge equipment will be more bespoke than just the 3rd rail 750 V capability of the 484s and D78s.

 

[SynthD]

What’s the purpose of third rail plus fast charge? Either it draws a regular amount from a third rail (or overhead) consistently available for part of its journey, or it draws a high amount from something only available when the train confirms its stationary and aligned, eg in a platform.

 

[Peter Sarf]

What’s the purpose of third rail plus fast charge? Either it draws a regular amount from a third rail (or overhead) consistently available for part of its journey, or it draws a high amount from something only available when the train confirms its stationary and aligned, eg in a platform.

The fast charge might be needed to top up the batteries on the longer non-3rd rail sections. If the batteries do not have a large enough capacity and/or the 3rd rail can not deliver a high enough current where it exists then this will be needed. Even if it means a station stop of longer than a couple of minutes (its about five minutes at West Ealing). Feasibility might come down to the cost of each fast charge installation and how often per hour it gets used.

 

[AlexSJW]

The 230s diesel-elecs are used on the 27 mile Birkenhead (Bidston) to Wrexham line. At Bidston there is a quick interchange with Merseyrail into Liverpool. TfW wanted these on full battery running into underground Liverpool James St where there is an empty platform, giving a full direct Wrexham-Liverpool line. Merseyrail said no as the carriages are too long to negotiate the Liverool loop and also problems in case of train breakdowns.

So they are resorting to Merseyrail taking over the 27 mile service on full battery Class 777s selling the 230s. So is the plan as it stands. Some have suggested making Neston an interchange station with Merseyrail 777s operating Liverpool-Neston and TfW Wrexham-Neston. There can be 4 trains an hour Liverpool-Neston, but not on the Welsh side because of freight movements.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The 230s diesel-elecs are used on the 27 mile Birkenhead (Bidston) to Wrexham line. At Bidston there is a quick interchange with Merseyrail into Liverpool. TfW wanted these on full battery running into underground Liverpool James St where there is an empty platform, giving a full direct Wrexham-Liverpool line. Merseyrail said no as the carriages are too long to negotiate the Liverool loop and also problems in case of train breakdowns.

So they are resorting to Merseyrail taking over the 27 mile service on full battery Class 777s selling the 230s. So is the plan as it stands. some have suggested making Neston and interchange station with Merseyrail 777s operating Liverpool-Neston and TfW Wrexham-Neston. There can be 4 trains an hour Liverpool-Neston, but not on the Welsh side because of freight movements.

Have you got a source for the issue being carriage length as I thought the main problem was the dislike of having diesel trains and so fuel in the Mersey tunnel.

I was also under the impression that the the 230s carriages were shorter than the previous 507 & 508 units that worked through the tunnel so I did not think that carriage length was an issue.

EDIT
End doors also required for the tunnels and the TfW 230s do not have them !.

 

[anthony263]

The DFT/Treasury should allow for additional battery class 230s to be created. Install fast charging on the other thames valley branches. Could reduce the costs of new BEMUs for now and releases more class 165/166's etc

Given its short turnaround at each end id say they'd have to install the fast charge system at slough and Windsor on the Slough to Windsor and eaton Central line.

Maybe some local lined around Bristol TM such as Portishead to Henbury service

 

[martin butler]

The fast charge might be needed to top up the batteries on the longer non-3rd rail sections. If the batteries do not have a large enough capacity and/or the 3rd rail can not deliver a high enough current where it exists then this will be needed. Even if it means a station stop of longer than a couple of minutes (its about five minutes at West Ealing). Feasibility might come down to the cost of each fast charge installation and how often per hour it gets used.

Plus, if a new design of BEMU becomes the default stock, on let's say Waterloo to Salisbury and onward to Exeter, there will need to be some way to top up batteries at Salisbury and at other places once off the juice,

and at Exeter, most likely in a stabling siding, that would be more cost efficient than sections of 3rd rail, or overhead, ideally, topping up might be able to be done whilst on 3rd rail, or overhead, where the un electrified lines have sections that are already electrified such as say Paddington to reading,

Imagine say as an example an GWR Paddington to Basingstoke, Bournemouth service, if that was ever thought viable, it would run on overhead, then battery, then 3rd rail, showing the flexibility such units could have, and the type, could be used on any route where electrification had already been introduced nationwide, subject to line clearance.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Plus, if a new design of BEMU becomes the default stock, on let's say Waterloo to Salisbury and onward to Exeter, there will need to be some way to top up batteries at Salisbury and at other places once off the juice,

and at Exeter, most likely in a stabling siding, that would be more cost efficient than sections of 3rd rail, or overhead, ideally, topping up might be able to be done whilst on 3rd rail, or overhead, where the un electrified lines have sections that are already electrified such as say Paddington to reading,

Imagine say as an example an GWR Paddington to Basingstoke, Bournemouth service, if that was ever thought viable, it would run on overhead, then battery, then 3rd rail, showing the flexibility such units could have, and the type, could be used on any route where electrification had already been introduced nationwide, subject to line clearance.

From Basingstoke onward to Exeter is quite a long way for a battery to cope. Although 230001 managed 200 miles iirc ?. That was nursing it rather so sub 100 miles range would be what to aim for. We have to assume there will be no more third rail electrification - its too unsafe to justify any more. Any more 25kV AC electrification would seem to be a miracle these days sadly.

I think the North Downs line might be attractive given the non third rail sections are broken up by existing third rail. Really depends how long it is acceptable to pause at Guildford. Reading I do not know about capacity for the North Downs line. Really I do not think Gatwick station will want to lose a platform for too long so Redhill where it reverses is more likely for a fast charge.

The coward in me suggests Redhill should be the limit with good connections ensured beyond to Gatwick. That way there will be no conflicting movements at Redhill but perhaps a lot of luggage being dragged over to the down platform !.

 

[Recessio]

In Geoff Marshall's recent video on the 230, the GWR spokesperson specifically mentions branch lines - I speculate that more self-contained service is a bit "safer" to test on, and means you can take the works to install fast charging equipment etc a bit easier than having to close a main-line or through-line? For example with the North Downs line you also have stretches shared with existing electrification and other rolling stock, could that make it more complicated to install and trial the equipment there?

 

[TheGrew]

Perhaps the Salisbury-Romsey figure of 6 route?
It's electrified from Redbridge to Eastleigh, and I imagine if you stuck a fast charger in at Romsey, you could cover the whole lot on a combination of the 3rd Rail and Battery.

 

[stevieinselby]

Plus, if a new design of BEMU becomes the default stock, on let's say Waterloo to Salisbury and onward to Exeter, there will need to be some way to top up batteries at Salisbury and at other places once off the juice, and at Exeter, most likely in a stabling siding

I wonder if platforms 1 and 3 at Exeter St Davids could be split into 1a/1b and 3a/3b, with a fast charger in each half, allowing the SWT Waterloo services to recharge in the platform while the GWR Riviera services use the other half of the platform (or even whether the Riviera services could use the same platform in both directions, and then you wouldn't need to split them), which could allow the Riviera services to use BEMUs as well.

I think the North Downs line might be attractive given the non third rail sections are broken up by existing third rail. Really depends how long it is acceptable to pause at Guildford. Reading I do not know about capacity for the North Downs line. Really I do not think Gatwick station will want to lose a platform for too long so Redhill where it reverses is more likely for a fast charge.

With the relatively short sections of unelectrified line, it may be that extended dwell times for fast charging wouldn't be needed. It would certainly be an obvious route to try.

In Geoff Marshall's recent video on the 230, the GWR spokesperson specifically mentions branch lines - I speculate that more self-contained service is a bit "safer" to test on, and means you can take the works to install fast charging equipment etc a bit easier than having to close a main-line or through-line? For example with the North Downs line you also have stretches shared with existing electrification and other rolling stock, could that make it more complicated to install and trial the equipment there?

Part of the reason for looking at short branch lines is that you don't have to worry about extended dwell times. A train will have a minimum turnaround time of maybe 3 minutes by the time the driver has powered down one cab, got out, walked to the other end of the train and powered up that cab – so if you've got a short enough round trip that you can get enough charge in in those 3 minutes then you're sorted – whereas longer lines might need 10 minutes to get enough charge, but then you've got a minimum turnaround time of 10 minutes, and if there are any delays on the service then you can't eat into that 10 minute dwell time to recover from them. It's also keeping it on a captive network, which operationally makes it simpler and more robust.

 

[WAO]

Please not 230's for the North Downs line. It's a serious passenger railway even if it doesn't end up in London. Its customers are used to proper EMU's and turn up in numbers expecting so. A 701 conversion please but not another Tadpole!

230's have their place on quieter branches where 153's or 2-car 150's would safely graze.

WAO

 

[Peter Sarf]

Please not 230's for the North Downs line. It's a serious passenger railway even if it doesn't end up in London. Its customers are used to proper EMU's and turn up in numbers expecting so. A 701 conversion please but not another Tadpole!

230's have their place on quieter branches where 153's or 2-car 150's would safely graze.

WAO

Having travelled on 230001 I was impressed. Certainly good for branch lines. Certainly better than a Pacer.

I am inclined to agree with you that there are plenty of branches to choose from.
BUT
Then I thought given that the 230s have a pedigree of serving on a London Metro route as far out as Upminster they might actually be ideal for the North Downs Line. Realistically as longer formations but then is there enough stock.

I go back to the old point that they could be serviced on a bit of ground alongside quiet branches. Being battery that is even easier - just the tanking of the loos.

 

[martin butler]

Please not 230's for the North Downs line. It's a serious passenger railway even if it doesn't end up in London. Its customers are used to proper EMU's and turn up in numbers expecting so. A 701 conversion please but not another Tadpole!

230's have their place on quieter branches where 153's or 2-car 150's would safely graze.

WAO

I am not advocating 230's for north downs line,I'm referring to a newly designed standard BEMU that could be developed from the 230 but in the meanwhile to test the concept, that another prototype 230 capable of running on 3rd rail, and battery to developed as a test bed, that could be used to trial charging from 3rd rail and fast charge as well as via 750v DC

 

[Recessio]

Please not 230's for the North Downs line. It's a serious passenger railway even if it doesn't end up in London. Its customers are used to proper EMU's and turn up in numbers expecting so. A 701 conversion please but not another Tadpole!

230's have their place on quieter branches where 153's or 2-car 150's would safely graze.

WAO

I am not advocating 230's for north downs line,I'm referring to a newly designed standard BEMU that could be developed from the 230 but in the meanwhile to test the concept, that another prototype 230 capable of running on 3rd rail, and battery to developed as a test bed, that could be used to trial charging from 3rd rail and fast charge as well as via 750v DC

The GWR spokesperson also said in Geoff Marshall video not to focus too heavily on the 230s: the battery tech is the key thing, not the fact that the battery is in a refurbished D stock. I inferred this meant it would be more likely to be applied in a brand ew rolling stock order to replace/cascade the current diesel fleet, not to retrofit old units with battery technology.

 

[martin butler]

The GWR spokesperson also said in Geoff Marshall video not to focus too heavily on the 230s: the battery tech is the key thing, not the fact that the battery is in a refurbished D stock. I inferred this meant it would be more likely to be applied in a brand ew rolling stock order to replace/cascade the current diesel fleet, not to retrofit old units with battery technology.

Would it not make more sense to test the technology in a test bed unit first to iron out any snags, unforeseen issues, and get real time knowledge, that could then be built into new BEMU units?

 

[JamesT]

Would it not make more sense to test the technology in a test bed unit first to iron out any snags, unforeseen issues, and get real time knowledge, that could then be built into new BEMU units?

Which is what the Greenford unit is doing. Is there anything more that can be learnt from having another?

 

[martin butler]

Which is what the Greenford unit is doing. Is there anything more that can be learnt from having another?

Yes, because it would make sence to have a unit that can operate on 3rd rail as well as batttery, as any future unit build, to be flexible across an entire network, would need to be duel voltage capable, as well as battery for example if GWR order a fleet of new battery units, for its services, and it still serves the North downs line, it will need units that can operate on 3rd rail as well as overhead, for maximum flexibility

 

[35B]

Yes, because it would make sence to have a unit that can operate on 3rd rail as well as batttery, as any future unit build, to be flexible across an entire network, would need to be duel voltage capable, as well as battery for example if GWR order a fleet of new battery units, for its services, and it still serves the North downs line, it will need units that can operate on 3rd rail as well as overhead, for maximum flexibility

The technology around multiple voltage systems is pretty well established. The innovation around the Greenford unit is to do with how it charges without needing a major new National Grid connection.

 

[hwl]

I am not advocating 230's for north downs line, I'm referring to a newly designed standard BEMU that could be developed from the 230 but in the meanwhile to test the concept, that another prototype 230 capable of running on 3rd rail, and battery to developed as a test bed, that could be used to trial charging from 3rd rail and fast charge as well as via 750v DC

The technology around multiple voltage systems is pretty well established. The innovation around the Greenford unit is to do with how it charges without needing a major new National Grid connection.

The 230 is a dead end technology wise. One of the key aims was to produce a proprietary charging systems locking in VivaRail as a supplier (similar to the Apple with phone charging connectors)

• Siemens now have better charging options (made in the UK) for situations without a good grid connection, charging via 25kV AC OHLE or 3rd rail. Expect other electrical equipment OEMs to follow soon (ABB could easily do it too as they already supply very similar equipment for heavy mining vehicles).
• The aim standards wise is to ensure all battery charging primarily in similar way to existing current supplies e.g. via 25kV AC OHLE or 3rd rail or if not in ways that do to get in the way of 25kV AC OHLE or 3rd rail; see RSSB T1272 project https://www.rssb.co.uk/research-catalogue/CatalogueItem/T1272 [This of this as equivalent to the EU standardising on USB-C for phone charging.]
• ABB or Siemens can supply LTO based battery packs that deal have much longer working lives with high C rates than the technology Viva rail uses.

 

[martin butler]

The 230 is a dead end technology wise. One of the key aims was to produce a proprietary charging systems locking in VivaRail as a supplier (similar to the Apple with phone charging connectors)

• Siemens now have better charging options (made in the UK) for situations without a good grid connection, charging via 25kV AC OHLE or 3rd rail. Expect other electrical equipment OEMs to follow soon (ABB could easily do it too as they already supply very similar equipment for heavy mining vehicles).
• The aim standards wise is to ensure all battery charging primarily in similar way to existing current supplies e.g. via 25kV AC OHLE or 3rd rail or if not in ways that do to get in the way of 25kV AC OHLE or 3rd rail; see RSSB T1272 project https://www.rssb.co.uk/research-catalogue/CatalogueItem/T1272 [This of this as equivalent to the EU standardising on USB-C for phone charging.]
• ABB or Siemens can supply LTO based battery packs that deal have much longer working lives with high C rates than the technology Viva rail uses.

Have any of those systems been trialed in a real railway environment though? that's my point, ideally there needs to be a test unit, that can have one of these systems fitted, and trialed to see how it copes with real time use, I thought using 230 body shells, because they are available and at scrap value,

Ideally it would need 2 test bed units, one with the Siemens system, one with the ABB system, to see which works best, and is the most reliable before any production of a new design of BEMU, incorporating either system

 

[hwl]

Have any of those systems been trialed in a real railway environment though? that's my point, ideally there needs to be a test unit, that can have one of these systems fitted, and trailed to see how it copes with real time use, I thought using 230 body shells, because they are available and at scrap value,

Ideally it would need 2 test bed units, one with the Siemens system, one with the ABB system, to see which works best, and is the most reliable before any production of a new design of BEMU, incorporating either system

For a trial to be translatable it ideally needs units with HVAC to include this loading in the testing. The 230s offer poor transferability of learnings for most battery applications.

Real world:
ABB LTO battery packs in TfW Class 756 - not demonstrator, a product delivered to the customer product and in use... Charges from 25kV AC. (Also see Switzerland)
The ABB LTO batteries in the Class 93 also have normal operating C rates equivalent to the "FastCharge" Vivarail GWR trial.

Low voltage supplies of OHLE (and battery):
Siemens and Porterbrook have been installing a 25kV AC OHLE at Porterbrook's Long Marston test track this is fed from an 11kV DNO supply with shore battery at Porterbrook's Long Marston test track. This will enable them to replicate routes with a mixture of OHLE available and not available and should be ready to use shortly.
ABB have supplied a system to a Swiss customer and it has been operating on a mountainous route in Switzerland for ~two years.

(ABB are global #1 in EV fast charging electronics (and even more dominance in HGV chargers), lots of fast chargers are actually 3rd parties repackaging ABB equipment with the 3rd party's billing technology/customer interface).

Multiple top tier heavy electrical OEMs are already doing every aspect better with likely much better product improvement trajectories because of the levels of R&D and suitable products they already have on the shelf.

 

[35B]

For a trial to be translatable it ideally needs units with HVAC to include this loading in the testing. The 230 offer poor transferability of learnings for most battery applications.

Real world:
ABB LTO battery packs in TfW Class 756 - not demonstrator, a product delivered to the customer product and in use... Charges from 25kV AC. (Also see Switzerland)
The ABB LTO batteries in the Class 93 also have normal operating C rates equivalent to the "FastCharge" Vivarail GWR trial.

Low voltage supplies of OHLE (and battery):
Siemens and Porterbrook have been installing a 25kV AC OHLE at Porterbrook's Long Marston test track this is fed from an 11kV DNO supply with shore battery at Porterbrook's Long Marston test track. This will enable them to replicate routes with a mixture of OHLE available and not available and should be ready to use shortly.
ABB have supplied a system to a Swiss customer and it has been operating on a mountainous route in Switzerland for ~two years.

(ABB are global #1 in EV fast charging electronics (and even more dominance in HGV chargers), lots of fast chargers are actually 3rd parties repackaging ABB equipment with the 3rd party's billing technology/customer interface).

Multiple top tier heavy electrical OEMs are already doing every aspect better with likely much better product improvement trajectories because of the levels of R&D and suitable products they already have on the shelf.

All of which is fair, but my understanding is that this test is about charging without HV DNO connections - a different approach to getting the power to the train.

 

[hwl]

All of which is fair, but my understanding is that this test is about charging without HV DNO connections - a different approach to getting the power to the train.

Which is also what Siemens are doing with the power supply at Long Marston.

 

[anthony263]

Could tbe 769/9's have been equipped with batteries instead of the diesel engines and used that way on the north downs line?