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!
If and when is it likely that we will start to see some existing rolling stock be converted or have batteries added to them?
For example, the Hitachi AT300's (Class 80X's) which already had testing done with TPE, or the Hitachi AT200's (Class 385's).
It was something specifically identified in the video linked below, where future battery retrofitting would be an option for either swapping out diesel engines or fitting them additionally.
Two fleets we know can take batteries based on previous trials are Class 379s and 802s. However, I don't see 379s getting them for two reasons: 1) the trial was a long time ago and the tech involved then was very primitive, and 2) they are probably not going anywhere beyond GN anytime soon given they've only just arrived, and don't need batteries on any GN turf.
IET stock would be a prime candidate I think to at least part-convert to battery power from diesel. On GWR if you swapped at least half the diesel engines for batteries on 800s, these could have enough range to cover Swansea, Cheltenham and Weston-super-Mare off the wires. The Cotswold line may need an electrification island somewhere around Worcester to be sure. 802s could do a battery swap in conjunction with islands of electrification in the West Country, such as around Exeter and Plymouth.
As well as GWR 800s, I’m unsure whether TPE would go for a full battery refit once the TRU is complete and all electrification is installed. Given the longest journey off wires after to my knowledge is Scarborough, which I think could be feasible with all batteries and full charge.
As for LNER and their 800s, I could see a reasonable case for a full battery swap once the wire islands in Fife, Dundee and Aberdeen are fully installed in the early to mid 2030s or even earlier depending on permitted range. The one exception would obviously be the Highland Chieftain service which would most likely still have to operate its once daily service on diesel and electric.
I think we'll only see a small amount of conversions. New builds are more likely to be successful and actually work at scale... (Though I wouldn't be shocked to see someone have a go at a 769 battery unit, what with the diesel element being so successful).
If the 80x fleet were to be converted then I would predict a partial conversion along the lines of the TPE trial to reduce diesel running rather than eliminate it, at least in the shorter term. Though with TRU, a full conversion of the TPE 802s could well be viable by the time they come up for a major overhaul.
I think it is highly likely we will see some of the relatively new fleets fitted with batteries at some point. As the technology matures and experience with battery operation grows, the risk (and therefore cost) associated with retrofitment will reduce to the point where it is more effective to convert a fleet than replace it.
Stadler and Hitachi have been offering modular designs (to 2 very different concepts, interestingly) that include battery options for some time. So I'd expect the IET and FLIRT fleets to be first candidates for conversion.
Are there any freight locos that could be converted? Given how many locos have gone through rebuilds in the past (47s into 57s, 56s into 69s), I doubt there'd be much of a step up to do it.
There is a very strong argument for fitting shunt batteries to all EMUs, particularly third rail, because this allows the removal of the risk from electrification within depots, and it also eases evacuation in the case of an electrical failure of some sort - just drive the affected train at slow speed, line of sight if necessary, to the next station.
Are there any freight locos that could be converted? Given how many locos have gone through rebuilds in the past (47s into 57s, 56s into 69s), I doubt there'd be much of a step up to do it.
I think we'll only see a small amount of conversions. New builds are more likely to be successful and actually work at scale... (Though I wouldn't be shocked to see someone have a go at a 769 battery unit, what with the diesel element being so successful).
There is a question of where a battery will fit, some units have very little empty space under the floor. And sticking units in cabinets in the passenger saloon might be unpopular (takes space, and probably needs fire proof cabinet). Not impossible, in past had transformers added above floor (class 306, 307 etc). Although many units (class 350, 377, 444, 450 etc likely to still be around in 20 years, so plenty of time to recoup conversion cost.
If the 80x fleet were to be converted then I would predict a partial conversion along the lines of the TPE trial to reduce diesel running rather than eliminate it, at least in the shorter term. Though with TRU, a full conversion of the TPE 802s could well be viable by the time they come up for a major overhaul.
There is also an indirect gain, for most of last year couldn't fix the GWR 80x fleet diesel units fast enough. If it becomes possible to switch modules (ie a battery unit will fit in the space of a diesel-generator unit), then could say replace one or two units per train with batteries, and increase the spares pool of diesel sets.
There would inevitably be maintenance savings (diesel engines are maintenance hungry compared to a battery), and possibly higher availability (or no trains struggling to keep time because forced into service with un-repaired isolated power units). So lots of potential upsides.
I've been toying with the idea of a battery enhanced 80x fleet, although mine thoughts were along the "what could be done to get 80x's to XC?"
The first step was to lengthen several of the 80x's at GWR so they were 9 coach units and then use the excess units to replace 22x units at XC.
Current GWR fleet:
36 × 5 coach 800
21 × 9 coach 800
22 × 5 coach 802
14 × 9 coach 802
(59 full length equivalent, where 5+5 is equivalent to a single 9 coach set)
Total coaches = 605
Total total diesel engines = 319
By substituting 2 batteries in the 9 coach sets and 1 battery in the 5 coach sets you could have longer sets without needing to increase the number of diesel engines.
This would allow a new GWR fleet of:
5 × 5 coach 800 (16 to XC)
36 × 9 coach 800
4 × 5 coach 802 (8 to XC)
24 × 9 coach 802
(64.5 full length equivalent, where 5+5 is equivalent to a single 9 coach set)
Total coaches = 605 (at GWR)
Total diesel engines = 216 (168 at GWR and 48 at XC).
Of the 136 up rated class 802 engines these could be used so every 5 coach unit used and just 11 of the 9 coach sets would be the lower powered engines.
24 class 80x's at XC would allow 20 diagrams (plus 4 units for spares) leaving 24 diagrams (plus a minimum of 5 units for spares) to be run by class 22x's.
There's currently 312 coaches at XC across their 22x fleets.
If the 24 class 800 sets were 5 coaches sets (120 coaches) that leaves 192 coaches available before we increase the number of coaches at XC.
The 34 × 4 coach 220's could be made into 17 × 6 coach sets (102 coaches), with around 320 seats in each.
Likewise, 18 of the 5 coach 221's could be retained (90 coaches), with 6 being able to be run as pairs at any given time (I.e. 12 are needed for diagrams/spares the other 6 can be coupled to a unit in service).
There is a very strong argument for fitting shunt batteries to all EMUs, particularly third rail, because this allows the removal of the risk from electrification within depots, and it also eases evacuation in the case of an electrical failure of some sort - just drive the affected train at slow speed, line of sight if necessary, to the next station.
I can see Southeastern doing this to all their 376s and 707s at a minimum when the Networker replacement fleet is delivered. The replacement fleet is intended to have batteries that allow both depot shunting and running in power supply failures (if Sharnal Street ever gets the go ahead they could also run here from Gravesend). At this point the former two fleets in their current form become a barrier to removing third rail from depots and could clog up the network in power supply failures, rendering the new fleet's batteries near-pointless.
707s have space under at least one carriage for a battery, if the extra weight can be tolerated. Not sure if 376s do though, but it might be possible to get away with not doing 376s if they are restricted to certain depot roads/carriage sidings. Ideally 375s, 377s and 395s would also be done, but this might be too costly, especially as by the time the new metro fleet has been delivered, the mainline fleet's replacement might be in planning.
There is a very strong argument for fitting shunt batteries to all EMUs, particularly third rail, because this allows the removal of the risk from electrification within depots, and it also eases evacuation in the case of an electrical failure of some sort - just drive the affected train at slow speed, line of sight if necessary, to the next station.
I think the most obvious candidate for retrofitment of this type would be the 717s, to (mostly) prevent stranding and ultimately to allow removal of the third rail from the Drayton Park-Moorgate section.
Windrush/East London Line (378s), Elizabeth Line (345s) and Thameslink (700s) would also have potential for a 'get me out of here' battery fitment, given the extremely high frequencies they work over their 'core' sections and high loadings they experience.
To me any battery conversion of existing stock has to meet "the what does it bring to the table" criteria. For TPE as the electrification gaps are (very slowly) being filled Batteries would make sense for any new stock, but is it really worth spending the money on existing stock. Emissions from the current diesel engines must be a fraction of a % of UK emissions, and the new batteries also have a footprint.
Creating electric stock which can do low speed short distance moves away from power only really makes sense if every unit used on a particular stretch is equipped, otherwise the non equipped units mean that in the event of a power failure everything stops anyway.
For GWR and MML the distances away from power are currently too long.
Given the cost of converting everything is it really worth retrofitting London suburban stock? If money was available then might it not be better to spend it to increase capacity, and get more people onto rail from other modes, particularly cars.
Creating electric stock which can do low speed short distance moves away from power only really makes sense if every unit used on a particular stretch is equipped, otherwise the non equipped units mean that in the event of a power failure everything stops anyway
I see an opportunity for this at AC/DC changeovers. Dual electrification creates a lot of expensive to not really resolve problems and fitting pretty small batteries to dual voltage stock can completely avoid it.
Putting enough batteries to allow even just 5 miles of autonomous operation to the 700 fleet would allow City Thameslink to Farringdon to be de-electrified and therefore all the risks and the whole infrastructure associated with the changeover to be eliminated.
Thameslink would work well because there's lots of barriers to running a train that way already, so it's not possible for anything other than a 700 to show up there.
I see an opportunity for this at AC/DC changeovers. Dual electrification creates a lot of expensive to not really resolve problems and fitting pretty small batteries to dual voltage stock can completely avoid it.
Putting enough batteries to allow even just 5 miles of autonomous operation to the 700 fleet would allow City Thameslink to Farringdon to be de-electrified and therefore all the risks and the whole infrastructure associated with the changeover to be eliminated.
Thameslink would work well because there's lots of barriers to running a train that way already, so it's not possible for anything other than a 700 to show up there.
It would make more sense if say doing something like Worting Junction (Basingstoke) - Salisbury with AC. Basically creating new voltage changeover points.
No economic advantage to spending more money adding batteries, where have already spent money having a dual voltage overlap. If cost of new batteries exceeds any continuing maintenance costs of the voltage overlap then will incur extra expense.
No economic advantage to spending more money adding batteries, where have already spent money having a dual voltage overlap. If cost of new batteries exceeds any continuing maintenance costs of the voltage overlap then will incur extra expense
There's some sums to do to figure that out. There's an ongoing maintenance and reliability cost to existing changeover equipment, and a capital cost plus different ongoing costs to making a change. Someone in possession of all the facts would need to make a decision.
I would expect that it will not be worth fitting batteries to the 700s at present, but perhaps when they come up for renewal or overhaul, or if the changeover infrastructure becomes obsolete or reliability declines then the equation will be different.
Would there be any solution in adapting the loco's with limited batteries and the control mechanisms etc and then attaching a separate vehicle (much like the old brake tenders) with a more significant battery capability and little else apart from the charging mechanisms?
To me any battery conversion of existing stock has to meet "the what does it bring to the table" criteria. For TPE as the electrification gaps are (very slowly) being filled Batteries would make sense for any new stock, but is it really worth spending the money on existing stock. Emissions from the current diesel engines must be a fraction of a % of UK emissions, and the new batteries also have a footprint.
Given the cost of converting everything is it really worth retrofitting London suburban stock? If money was available then might it not be better to spend it to increase capacity, and get more people onto rail from other modes, particularly cars.
The cost of converting everything probably won't get you that much if the alternative is spending on infrastructure.
Infrastructure has got far more expensive relative to rolling stock over recent decades. There are only 4,146 diesel-fitted multiple unit vehicles left according to the ORR, and only 2,868 are fully diesel. That's out of a fleet of 15,348.
Only if you are thinking of using batteries to create a pure BEMU.
Running a 5 coach unit with 2 diesel generators and a battery raft (replacing the third diesel engine) basically gets you a plug in hybrid.
The battery could do a lot of the work if the third engine (power boosting away from stops, up gradients, etc.) whist also being able to charge as it slows.
Unlike in cars, the advantages are much better (they get plugged in and it's a revival of an engine rather than making a single engine more efficient).
Only if you are thinking of using batteries to create a pure BEMU.
Running a 5 coach unit with 2 diesel generators and a battery raft (replacing the third diesel engine) basically gets you a plug in hybrid.
The battery could do a lot of the work if the third engine (power boosting away from stops, up gradients, etc.) whist also being able to charge as it slows.
Unlike in cars, the advantages are much better (they get plugged in and it's a revival of an engine rather than making a single engine more efficient).
Indeed, although once you have them as "plug in hybrids" the move to BEMU is easier.
Also, it's worth noting that even LNER's class 801's still have one engine, so it's not like that would entirely disappear until a lot more of the network is wired anyway.
The one system where adding batteries to existing stock makes good sense is the the London Underground.
The Underground's lines are so short and the trains move so slowly that giving them enough battery capacity to do the whole length of any line is not difficult, in fact its quite possible to give the vehicles the range to be able to do an out and back trip to allow for one of the line end chargers to go off line. Depending on the length of the line you could cover all of the lines with a 100, 200 or 300KWh battery per carriage. Deliberately over specifying the batteries means that they will last a lot longer as they won't ever be deeply discharged in normal service, also it means that they can be charged faster. The trains would then be charged at the terminating stations, potentially some of the longer line or ones with particularly fast turn arounds might need a charger at the second to end of line stations.
The benefits of going to battery electric rolling stock are that you can strip out the existing electrification from the system which will avoid a substantial maintenance cost (estimate about £50 million a year), it will also free up lots of space below ground to do things like install HVAC systems. However the major benefits are likely to be safety ones, we remove the possibility of falling passengers being electrocuted and it also means that passengers can evacuate the train without the need to disable the power supplies. This job is one of the last justifications for keeping drivers in the trains, going to remote operation is likely to save in the region of £300 million a year if fully implemented.
Furthermore a whole load of maintenance costs for other things would likely drop because they could be done at normal hours with trains running because the track would not need to be de-energised. As London Underground spends around £1.5bn on maintenance and renewals it would not be a mad estimate to suggest that we might be able to find ~£100m in cost savings there.
To put that into perspective that £450 million would let you borrow an additional £9 billion to invest in increasing the capacity of the system.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Indeed, although once you have them as "plug in hybrids" the move to BEMU is easier.
Also, it's worth noting that even LNER's class 801's still have one engine, so it's not like that would entirely disappear until a lot more of the network is wired anyway.
Replacing the 801's diesel with batteries should be very viable, including its fuel it weighs several tonnes, you could get around 0.85MWh's of batteries in there which would allow you to limp a very long way on battery power alone or in fact operate the train at full power for ~20 minutes.
Also, it's worth noting that even LNER's class 801's still have one engine, so it's not like that would entirely disappear until a lot more of the network is wired anyway.
The one system where adding batteries to existing stock makes good sense is the the London Underground.
The Underground's lines are so short and the trains move so slowly that giving them enough battery capacity to do the whole length of any line is not difficult, in fact its quite possible to give the vehicles the range to be able to do an out and back trip to allow for one of the line end chargers to go off line. Depending on the length of the line you could cover all of the lines with a 100, 200 or 300KWh battery per carriage. Deliberately over specifying the batteries means that they will last a lot longer as they won't ever be deeply discharged in normal service, also it means that they can be charged faster. The trains would then be charged at the terminating stations, potentially some of the longer line or ones with particularly fast turn arounds might need a charger at the second to end of line stations.
The benefits of going to battery electric rolling stock are that you can strip out the existing electrification from the system which will avoid a substantial maintenance cost (estimate about £50 million a year), it will also free up lots of space below ground to do things like install HVAC systems. However the major benefits are likely to be safety ones, we remove the possibility of falling passengers being electrocuted and it also means that passengers can evacuate the train without the need to disable the power supplies. This job is one of the last justifications for keeping drivers in the trains, going to remote operation is likely to save in the region of £300 million a year if fully implemented.
Furthermore a whole load of maintenance costs for other things would likely drop because they could be done at normal hours with trains running because the track would not need to be de-energised. As London Underground spends around £1.5bn on maintenance and renewals it would not be a mad estimate to suggest that we might be able to find ~£100m in cost savings there.
To put that into perspective that £450 million would let you borrow an additional £9 billion to invest in increasing the capacity of the system.
How is that relevant? That would be the primary traction source, on an 801 the diesel is an emergency backup, and batteries would perform the same role but in a far simpler form.
Don't shoe horn battery equipment into unsutable old trains. Class 8xx fine, it appears to work. Don't bother with anything diesal like Class 22X's and i suspect Class 350's may be a costly failure.
How is that relevant? That would be the primary traction source, on an 801 the diesel is an emergency backup, and batteries would perform the same role but in a far simpler form.
refer to, if not range? That one 940bhp diesel and a tank of fuel would get a train easily from Paddington to Bristol, and probably back, even if at only 60mph.
refer to, if not range? That one 940bhp diesel and a tank of fuel would get a train easily from Paddington to Bristol, and probably back, even if at only 60mph.
I wasn't really getty at the range, but fair enough, I did say that.
They're still completely different use cases - the emergency power needs to keep the lights on until the power covers back or until the train can complete a low speed trundle to some live OLE, whereas a class 20 would have to perform a days work on whatever was in its tank.
I would think that the fitting of batteries to tube trains would be regarded as somewhat negatively because, like all metro systems, trains have to keep to ultra-tight schedules with rapid acceleration/deceleration, so keeping the tare weight to the lowest possible would be the prime consideration. A minor point is that batteries heat up when in use, and the Underground has enough problems with rising temperatures as it is. On-shore batteries, now that's different.
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.
