Possibly. ISTR something similar being promised for nuclear fusion and that's still a long way off
Unfortunately we can't commit long term plans based on intangibles, we have to plan with what's possible now and realistically pure BEMU is only suitable for a limited use-case.
Thanks for reminding me! I can remember a 444 taking full power in the wheels-free Wareham - Weymouth testing and a 442 taking power in the opposite direction just died !
I personally don't see that happening as fleets get older with the problems age causes, the orders for new trains will be necessary sooner than later. What I think will happen with procurement though is future proofing. Easy swap outs for new battery technology will enable the manufacturers to build trains in the meantime that can be upgraded in the future.
Quite. Another option is to see what other countries have been quietly getting on with while we've been navel-watching. See SNCF/Alstom/CAF's TER efforts as an example.
There are some with even longer memories who will remember the issues caused by class 86 bogies causing track damage. And that was when BR was effectively a single infrastructure, operating company and engineer!
Agree with this. I think a significant weakness of the original NR traction decarbonisation strategy (only really visible with the clarity of hindsight) is that it didn't anticipate (or obviously scenario-plan) how battery costs would decline. So there is also a temptation to wait as every improvement in battery tech leaves a little bit less network to electrify and a few £ saved (although there is still quite a lot of apparently no-regrets electrification that is required in any sensible battery scenario).
...in a less restrictive loading gauge. That's not to say nothing can be learned, but the Cl810 programme is my Exhibit A in the debate about whether it is quick, easy and cheap to package stuff into a smaller train. The 810s were an example of joined up infrastructure/stock thinking as, when MMLE was cancelled (2017 version), the industry went out and developed a very detailed specification for just the right number of bimode trains that could make the most of 240m platforms and match Cl222 performance on diesel, which has led to the 810s being a small fleet of very different train to other 80x.
Surely all it means is that we proceed slowly - there must be plenty of scope for battery bi-modes on routes that are already within battery capability - cascading newer dmus as and where appropriate (and slowly adding electrified kms - continuous or discontinuous as appropriate). Routes that require longer battery life await either more capable batteries or mid-route recharging facilities.
Ah yes the bionic duckweed argument. I'd be building a modular design that allows batteries to be replaced with enhanced ones further down the line, but keeps the rest of the train the same.
As long as you're OK with other countries banning the purchase of British built trains in return... oh, wait.
Most other countries do already prioritise home-built rolling stock though, it's just that not everywhere is capable of doing that on a large scale for various reasons which are not usually tied to political point-scoring.
CAF, Hitachi and Alstom trains are "British built" (ie assembled here) but largely designed overseas.
You have partly answered your own question.
It's not hard to work it out. The 80x are not "good now" - the cracking issues remain but are being "managed", but the ride quality is still diabolical and Hitachi's attitude towards its customers remains unprofessional at best. If there was any sense on the railway, Hitachi would not be seeing a new train order.
Having better batteries installed later on means those units can move onto routes that can benefit from them and were up till then too little electrified. Then buy new units for the existing line. Or you just reduce the weight of the existing unit.
For Marylebone/Birmingham I would electrify the majority that is simple, poosibly do intermediate complexities and leave out the expensive per mile ends where all the complex point work (and Marylebone tunnel) is. Current battery technology can probably handle that.
I think the 80x are still suffering cracking, it is just better managed. The harsh ride passengers feel is still shaking the 80x body shells to bits where they connect to the bogies !.
ROSCOs probably pandered to the bespoke requirements each aspirational operator had in their endeavour to win the bid to run that service group.
Alstom have design capability at Derby and have developed the Adessia platform there. Yet to secure any orders but one has to presume thats what they've bid for any EMU/BEMU requirements.
Yes, but major components will come from outside the UK (eg electrics, bogies, power packs and probably batteries). The supply chain is global these days, just like for cars.
Perhaps "good" was an exaggeration but from my PoV as an occasional passenger their availability is good, the only one cancelled on me recently (Gt Malvern - PAD on a Sunday) was crew shortage. Am not really conscious of the bad ride/hard seats though it doesn't compare with HST. Poor alignment of seats with windows is my main complaint.
Makes no sense to enhance existing trains, cascade them and build replacements ?to existing spec. Just build new longer range units for the other route to begin with. Or am I missing sthg? If you mean when the original batteries are end of life, just fit smaller lighter hopefully cheaper replacements.
Doesn't address the issue of diesel pollution at the termini. I suspect this is cosmetic/greenwashing though, doubt if it is a real problem compared with road traffic anyway.
Battery trains that recharge / run from wires where they are available do, though. Yes, they’d possibly have a “limp home if all else fails” diesel engine, but not one designed for day to day use.
The Chinese Government invested in battery technology and this can be seen in cars and buses in the UK.
In some electric cars and London taxis they have a small petrol or diesel engine used as a "range extender" for this, so most likely to be used in some battery trains.
The diesel element of the TfW Class 230s is more-or-less a ’range extender’.
My misunderstanding. But if not over the complex point work would you put wires up just over the platforms so they can recharge while waiting there to form the outbound service? Otherwise you are not making best use of the dwell time.
That to me is one of the inherent dilemmas of partial electrification. The places where it makes most sense to have wiring are precisely those likely to be most complex / expensive to wire. That is, termini and principal nodes.
www.railforums.co.uk
Maybe do it with something other than 25kV OHLE at termini then, what about a shore power cable at 750V or whatever the xformer secondary or internal bus runs at, has this been tried? Side contact third rail? I imagine most things have been looked at.
In the UK we used to move older trains onto lesser routes. Thus the more important routes got newer trains. Even nowadays the 222s are leaving the Midland main line for Scotland (mostly), that is because the route the 222s currently work is gradually getting electrified.
Was talking about battery power. Only small diesel, as a get out of jail card.
+
I think a fast charge method like that successfully trialled at West Ealing with the 230 is most likely for charging at termini.
Not sure the station dwells are the best place to charge, particularly over a long route. Batteries and charging technology are not yet going get you around 100 miles range at line speeds of 80+ mph. After all the battery energy is unlikely to last for the majority of a long route so the best thing to do is electrify the longer easy bits. The train will be able to gain charge when not accelerating hard (obviously regenerative braking as well).
Other than the dwell time (which I agree isn’t going to be enough), the other reason for wiring termini is that they tend to be in precisely those places where there is pressure to reduce diesel emissions.
