Electrifying Mainlines for Battery Train operation (using Class 897 as an example

[Elecman]

Even better, the train could be programmed to normally use AC, but switch to battery when the line voltage drops below a certain threshold, say 23kV.

I think you would need to drop that voltage level to around 19kV rather than 23kV as that voltage level is too often reached in normal service

 

[GraphitProjekt]

Much better go to west from Hull to Gilberdyke as @zwk500 says and the OHLE can take the hotel and aux loads during the long layovers in Hull and charge at low-ish C rate that is kind to batteries and avoid the Selby headache.

yes hence zwk500 and I suggesting doing the far (Hull) side of Selby rather than the short ECML - Selby section. (This also make the TP Hull services and some Northern Service easy to BEMU...)

Yeah, I do see in retrospect how much more strategic wiring at the Hull end would be - I didn't actually know there was a swing bridge at Selby.

The only wrinkle is that this wiring would need to be N-2 contingent lest a battery 897 could be stranded. This means Hull-Gilberdyke would need to have 2 feeder stations with at least 3 grid connections between them. If the system was contiguous with the ECML, you may only need 1 extra grid connection. It was said that Hambleton Jnc SFC was designed to support a theoretical Hull scheme. And is backed up by the surrounding feeder stations (Potteric Carr, Ravensthorpe) also using SFC technology and so should all be quite a bit more capable than classic connections in the area (York and Kirkstall)

 

[zwk500]

Yeah, I do see in retrospect how much more strategic wiring at the Hull end would be - I didn't actually know there was a swing bridge at Selby.

The only wrinkle is that this wiring would need to be N-2 contingent lest a battery 897 could be stranded. This means Hull-Gilberdyke would need to have 2 feeder stations with at least 3 grid connections between them. If the system was contiguous with the ECML, you may only need 1 extra grid connection. It was said that Hambleton Jnc SFC was designed to support a theoretical Hull scheme. And is backed up by the surrounding feeder stations (Potteric Carr, Ravensthorpe) also using SFC technology and so should all be quite a bit more capable than classic connections in the area (York and Kirkstall)

The N-2 contingent could be provided by a 'giant extension lead' if really needed, although surely Hull-Gilberdyke would only need 1 Feeder station with 2 incoming supplies given the amount of power it would actually need to supply?

There's a 400KV line crossing the railway not too far east of Gilberdyke (https://openinframap.org/#12.09/53.73897/-0.62457) which would be the obvious point for a feeder station, does N-2 need to come from independent supplies or could you use 2 separate sets of equipment?
Equally, you could just decide that in the unlikely event of the Feeder Station going offline, Short-term operational measures will be taken to reduce the risk of a train getting stranded (cancellations and RRBs, load-shedding, slow speed, etc).

 

[eldomtom2]

I think that illustrates the paradox that I'm trying to explore in this thread. Batteries are now cheap and getting cheaper as the technology develops, giving ever increasing capacity and faster charging times. But the rail industry seems to regard battery at best as a temporary aberation until "proper" electrification can be installed. I think that's a mistake.

The sensible thing to do is plan based on the technology that exists today, not future technology that may or may not materialise.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

The N-2 contingent could be provided by a 'giant extension lead' if really needed, although surely Hull-Gilberdyke would only need 1 Feeder station with 2 incoming supplies given the amount of power it would actually need to supply?

Indeed, you probably only need 1 grid supply for the actual requisite power, 1 fs 2gsp is for N-1 contingency. But as you say, the supplies need to be independent, exactly what the level of independence is on the grid side I'm not sure. Probably adjacent feeder stations need to be in different transmission grid areas especially if taken from the 132kV network directly. I'm not sure exactly how the requirement of separation changes where feeds are drawn from lower-down networks.

I did once try to chart out the interdependencies between the upstream infrastructure for Tyne & Wear metro substations (which all draw from local secondary distribution lines (11kV)). And I found that all of them corresponded to a different Primary substation, but those Primaries were often themselves connected to similar Transmission substations. This is somewhat complicated by the fact that, in the Newcastle area, it's common for transmission voltage is stepped down straight to the Primary distribution level of 33kV or 66kV skipping over sub-transmission layer (132kV).

There's a 400KV line crossing the railway not too far east of Gilberdyke (https://openinframap.org/#12.09/53.73897/-0.62457) which would be the obvious point for a feeder station, does N-2 need to come from independent supplies or could you use 2 separate sets of equipment?
Equally, you could just decide that in the unlikely event of the Feeder Station going offline, Short-term operational measures will be taken to reduce the risk of a train getting stranded (cancellations and RRBs, load-shedding, slow speed, etc).

I'd guess that transmission grid source for such a line would be overkill, and so unnecessarily expensive. The entire MML from Farringdon to Sheffield was planned to be fed off 10x TNO connections amongst 5x feeder stations. Hull - Gilberdike is 17 miles and Gilberdike - Hambleton Jnc is about another 17 miles (interesting coincidence).

17 miles of feeder cable between Hambleton and Gilberdike is definitely do-able, it's about 5km longer than longest 25kV feeder cable currently around (Thingley Jnc - Wooton Basset Jnc). But it's not exactly cheap and easy (even though Southern Region have been doing such things for years without any complaint).

I would probably go for a 2x SFC feeder drawn off the 33kV switchboard of a nearby 132/33kV substation, similar to Potteric Carr in Doncaster: perhaps the 132kV sites at Hull South or Hull East.

Another way would be not to have an extension lead, and instead do 2 fs with 4 gsp but from the local 11kV grid with the Siemens equipment.

But this is all random guesswork tbh.

 

[zwk500]

17 miles of feeder cable between Hambleton and Gilberdike is definitely do-able, it's about 5km longer than longest 25kV feeder cable currently around (Thingley Jnc - Wooton Basset Jnc). But it's not exactly cheap and easy (even though Southern Region have been doing such things for years without any complaint).

I would probably go for a 2x SFC feeder drawn off the 33kV switchboard of a nearby 132/33kV substation, similar to Potteric Carr in Doncaster: perhaps the 132kV sites at Hull South or Hull East.

In that case, Osgodby is a 132/33kV substation just east of Selby, which reduces the need for the 'extension lead' (if not removing it altogether), and then you could potentially have a secondary feeder at either Hull South substation (also 132/33kV), or where the 33kV line runs under the triangle just outside Hull Paragon (useful for sectioning if the coast is ever electrified!).

As you say, all rather speculative/academic/crayoning at this point though.

It does, however, highlight a very relevant problem with the growing rise of batteries as part of the traction provision - creating significant inefficiencies in the OLE Power Supply Network because contingency and resilience is required but the area isn't big enough to provide the normal setup.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

Thinking about the fact Gilberdike is pretty much 17 miles from both Hull and Hambleton. It does make me think that the plan was to put a midpoint substation at that junction and feed eastwards from a new feeder somewhere in Hull. (Hull South 132kV near to Paragon seems like a good spot to me). 17 miles is pretty ideal for a classically fed system, an SFC system can do a lot more from a lower voltage, but is quite expensive if a classic option is available (impossible for us to know that though).

What about wiring all the way through with a short discontinuity through Selby with cables for each OLE circuit around the swing bridge?

 

[Zomboid]

What about wiring all the way through with a short discontinuity through Selby with cables for each OLE circuit around the swing bridge?

That's what we'd do if we had any sense. In fact we'd have done it in about 1976.

The technology exists now to have live wires on the bridge if we want, and whilst that would be relatively expensive and non-standard it would mean that a lot of the trains running that way (ECML and TPE, plus at least a good chunk of the northern services) could be straight electric with all the weight and removal of complexity benefits that would bring.

Though to be honest I can see a case for doing wires to the bridge abutments and fitting most electric trains with a few miles worth of traction batteries. Selby station may be a bit too close to the bridge for coasting, but with modern train acceleration it might be possible with a permanently earthed beam to guide the pantograph over.

 

[zwk500]

What about wiring all the way through with a short discontinuity through Selby with cables for each OLE circuit around the swing bridge?

It's what the dutch would do

That's what we'd do if we had any sense. In fact we'd have done it in about 1976.

Well, it'd have been 'phase 2' of the ECML electrification through the area at least.

The technology exists now to have live wires on the bridge if we want, and whilst that would be relatively expensive and non-standard it would mean that a lot of the trains running that way (ECML and TPE, plus at least a good chunk of the northern services) could be straight electric with all the weight and removal of complexity benefits that would bring.

Wiring Selby-Hull on it's own would only allow the ex-King's Cross services to move to EMU operation. Without Micklefield-Selby the Northern and TPE would still need an independent mode.

I suspect that going forward we will see most, if not all, EMUs be ordered as BEMUs to allow services to continue in the event of disruption to the power supply (see the 555s), the main distinction will then be between EMUs with a short range or restricted speed on battery, and BEMUs designed to use them in regular service. In this context, there will be limited saving of weight and complexity reduction.

Though to be honest I can see a case for doing wires to the bridge abutments and fitting most electric trains with a few miles worth of traction batteries. Selby station may be a bit too close to the bridge for coasting, but with modern train acceleration it might be possible with a permanently earthed beam to guide the pantograph over.

If you're wiring to the bridge itself then the obvious thing to do is have APCO beacons west/south of Selby station (but the wires as far as the platforms) and east of the swing bridge. If traction batteries fail to engage, then coasting as far as Selby station should be possible and then can manually pan up to continue/reverse as required.

 

[Zomboid]

Wiring Selby-Hull on it's own would only allow the ex-King's Cross services to move to EMU operation. Without Micklefield-Selby the Northern and TPE would still need an independent mode.

I failed to explain my full crayon sandwich there, but I had included Mickelfield to Selby and Church Fenton to Gascoigne Wood.

It's scope creep, but enabling the full Leeds to Hull (including the Manchesters) service to go over to straight electric operations seems a worthwhile benefit, and provides a load more charging infrastructure for the battery services that'll operate in the south east of Leeds area.

 

[zwk500]

I failed to explain my full crayon sandwich there, but I had included Mickelfield to Selby and Church Fenton to Gascoigne Wood.

It's scope creep, but enabling the full Leeds to Hull (including the Manchesters) service to go over to straight electric operations seems a worthwhile benefit, and provides a load more charging infrastructure for the battery services that'll operate in the south east of Leeds area.

Ah, fair enough. We're both of the same page. Shame the treasury aren't likely to be!

 

[Zomboid]

Ah, fair enough. We're both of the same page. Shame the treasury aren't likely to be!

Yeah, I doubt it'll go how I'd choose, but I would definitely look to do complete routes where possible so that as many trains as possible can just be straight electrics - which will be cheaper to buy, lighter (so use less energy moving and do less damage to the track), won't incur charging and discharging losses (so more energy efficient again) and simpler to maintain, whilst not having expensive components that are unlikely to last the life of the train.

Doing 10 miles here and there will be expensive to provide resilience, less energy efficient, harder on the tracks and fast charging batteries frequently is a great way to ensure they have a short life.

Many service groups will have to be battery operated, and for short sections like swing bridges or AC/ DC changeovers having a small battery makes the infrastructure much simpler and can also provide hotel power and a limp home mode during disruption, so is probably worthwhile.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

It's what the dutch would do

It's what they did in Norwich too! As well as attempting to build an electrified swing bridge, there are also 2 cables across the riverbed. I think the Dutch way is to coast over but I presume this isn't an option for Selby. Are there any other fully wired swing bridges out there?

Yeah, I doubt it'll go how I'd choose, but I would definitely look to do complete routes where possible so that as many trains as possible can just be straight electrics - which will be cheaper to buy, lighter (so use less energy moving and do less damage to the track), won't incur charging and discharging losses (so more energy efficient again) and simpler to maintain, whilst not having expensive components that are unlikely to last the life of the train.

Doing 10 miles here and there will be expensive to provide resilience, less energy efficient, harder on the tracks and fast charging batteries frequently is a great way to ensure they have a short life.

Many service groups will have to be battery operated, and for short sections like swing bridges or AC/ DC changeovers having a small battery makes the infrastructure much simpler and can also provide hotel power and a limp home mode during disruption, so is probably worthwhile.

I very much agree
I wonder if there's any way for NT and TPE fleets that run in this area to also deployed somewhere where their batteries might be used more often. Perhaps for Northern there are some relevant routes like through Goole to Doncaster and Knottingley.

 

[zwk500]

It's what they did in Norwich too! As well as attempting to build an electrified swing bridge, there are also 2 cables across the riverbed. I think the Dutch way is to coast over but I presume this isn't an option for Selby. Are there any other fully wired swing bridges out there?

Technically Trowse is a solid bar, not a wire The US has had at least one fully wired swing bridge on the Northeast Corridor (the Portal bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_Bridge#Rail_service), but it probably has (or had) others. There are also electrified moving bridges in Germany, but they're rolling or lifting bridges rather than swing bridges I think (such as the Huntebruecke in Oldenburg https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/nied...r-ohne-einschraenkungen,huntebruecke-118.html).

 

[GraphitProjekt]

Considering we were speculating on what a Hull line discontinuous scheme could be, looks like we'll get an answer to this rather sooner than I thought. By the fact the electrification is to be built by the train manufacturer, I think we'll be looking at static charging at Hull platforms only and relying on a supposed 90 miles battery range.
- Micklefield to Hull is ~23 miles.
- Northallerton to Saltburn is ~32½ miles
- York to Scarborough is ~42 miles

So from that, it looks like they want the terminus charging to be just a top-up since a loss of charging infrastructure at any of the far ends still puts the train able to make the round trip back to wires, although only just about for Scarborough, with battery degradation this could get problematic.

The two things that come to my mind is that one of the most likely consequences of disruption are trains left stranded for many hours waiting for problems to clear. On its own that is probably okay but would become an issue with degraded life cycle if multiple trains now have to dwell for much longer having eventually made it to the end of the line. And secondly, is there any thought to how this could work with London-Hull trains? For instance, I can't imagine they'd want to install normal overhead line at the terminals in such a way that could be easily stitched into the full electrification of that route, therefore the Alstom charging infra would represent abortive spend.

 

[Class 317]

The sensible thing to do is plan based on the technology that exists today, not future technology that may or may not materialise.

I believe the sensible strategy is to plan what's possible with today's technology but take a realistic look forward at what's likely to improve in say 10 years so you don't unnecessarily do too many schemes constrained by current limitations. That way you make the most cost effective use of resources.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 07:31 ==

For me a national strategy based on electrification of main lines to facilitate battery operation on secondary routes and branch lines would make sense. Any future strategy needs to be a rolling plan using both OHLE and BEMU'S in step with each other to both reduce costs and maximise benefits.

 

[Mikey C]

I believe the sensible strategy is to plan what's possible with today's technology but take a realistic look forward at what's likely to improve in say 10 years so you don't unnecessarily do too many schemes constrained by current limitations. That way you make the most cost effective use of resources.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 07:31 ==

For me a national strategy based on electrification of main lines to facilitate battery operation on secondary routes and branch lines would make sense. Any future strategy needs to be a rolling plan using both OHLE and BEMU'S in step with each other to both reduce costs and maximise benefits.

And if you have relatively standardised stock, then if you then decide to full electrify a line because the line usage justifies the expense, then the battery stock can be moved elsewhere.

 

[hwl]

Considering we were speculating on what a Hull line discontinuous scheme could be, looks like we'll get an answer to this rather sooner than I thought. By the fact the electrification is to be built by the train manufacturer, I think we'll be looking at static charging at Hull platforms only and relying on a supposed 90 miles battery range.
- Micklefield to Hull is ~23 miles.
- Northallerton to Saltburn is ~32½ miles
- York to Scarborough is ~42 miles

So from that, it looks like they want the terminus charging to be just a top-up since a loss of charging infrastructure at any of the far ends still puts the train able to make the round trip back to wires, although only just about for Scarborough, with battery degradation this could get problematic.

Correct

The two things that come to my mind is that one of the most likely consequences of disruption are trains left stranded for many hours waiting for problems to clear. On its own that is probably okay but would become an issue with degraded life cycle if multiple trains now have to dwell for much longer having eventually made it to the end of the line.

This is where looking back at several years of operating data understand what happens is very useful. Luckily for TP the standard layovers at some of these coastal termini are pretty large so the "top up" can be fairly large if not back to full. The future timetable could be different though.

And secondly, is there any thought to how this could work with London-Hull trains? For instance, I can't imagine they'd want to install normal overhead line at the terminals in such a way that could be easily stitched into the full electrification of that route, therefore the Alstom charging infra would represent abortive spend.

Since the Viva Rail trail euphoria of summer 5 years ago, there is now a standardised approach to local charging (outlined in RSSB T1372?) namely standard OHLE or 3rd rail just with a local power supply so there are no issue if Hull trains wanted to joint the party (the new First group 80x units (808?) to strengthen Lumo/Hull services are OHLE / battery only but I'm not sure if the plan is always to 802+808 rather than 2x 808) or electrifying later.

 

[Snow1964]

Since the Viva Rail trail euphoria of summer 5 years ago, there is now a standardised approach to local charging (outlined in RSSB T1372?) namely standard OHLE or 3rd rail just with a local power supply so there are no issue if Hull trains wanted to joint the party (the new First group 80x units (808?) to strengthen Lumo/Hull services are OHLE / battery only but I'm not sure if the plan is always to 802+808 rather than 2x 808) or electrifying later.

Thats a slightly different question though, can a BEMU be coupled to an EMU (in either unit leading) to run through an unelectrified zone.

the main distinction will then be between EMUs with a short range or restricted speed on battery, and BEMUs designed to use them in regular service.

I guess BEMUs of a type with battery for running say 40+ miles, (but not those with token battery mainly for shunting or short emergency use) are going to be able to cope with a lower speed secondary line with a dead EMU coupled too. But obviously not race along a higher speed section.

It does raise some interesting questions about where 2 unit formations that join/split on route could be capable of getting to

 

[3RDGEN]

Considering we were speculating on what a Hull line discontinuous scheme could be, looks like we'll get an answer to this rather sooner than I thought. By the fact the electrification is to be built by the train manufacturer, I think we'll be looking at static charging at Hull platforms only and relying on a supposed 90 miles battery range.
- Micklefield to Hull is ~23 miles.
- Northallerton to Saltburn is ~32½ miles
- York to Scarborough is ~42 miles

So from that, it looks like they want the terminus charging to be just a top-up since a loss of charging infrastructure at any of the far ends still puts the train able to make the round trip back to wires, although only just about for Scarborough, with battery degradation this could get problematic.

The two things that come to my mind is that one of the most likely consequences of disruption are trains left stranded for many hours waiting for problems to clear. On its own that is probably okay but would become an issue with degraded life cycle if multiple trains now have to dwell for much longer having eventually made it to the end of the line. And secondly, is there any thought to how this could work with London-Hull trains? For instance, I can't imagine they'd want to install normal overhead line at the terminals in such a way that could be easily stitched into the full electrification of that route, therefore the Alstom charging infra would represent abortive spend.

Hull - Micklefield is approx 40 miles similar to York - Scarborough but at higher speeds but flat as a pancake.

Does anyone have a link to the 90 mile battery range claim please?

 

[hwl]

Thats a slightly different question though, can a BEMU be coupled to an EMU (in either unit leading) to run through an unelectrified zone.

No nothing to provide the Hotel and aux supplies in the EMU.

I guess BEMUs of a type with battery for running say 40+ miles, (but not those with token battery mainly for shunting or short emergency use) are going to be able to cope with a lower speed secondary line with a dead EMU coupled too. But obviously not race along a higher speed section.

It does raise some interesting questions about where 2 unit formations that join/split on route could be capable of getting to

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 14:26 ==

Hull - Micklefield is approx 40 miles similar to York - Scarborough but at higher speeds but flat as a pancake.

Does anyone have a link to the 90 mile battery range claim please?

Loads of links (Alstom/TP/DFT) in the TP thread now in the "speculative" section

 

[3RDGEN]

Loads of links (Alstom/TP/DFT) in the TP thread now in the "speculative" section

Can see reference to 90 miles in an X message from TPE but there's no reference in the TPE, Alstom or Rock Group articles below;

"https://www.tpexpress.co.uk/new-trains-2026", "https://www.alstom.com/press-releas...itains-first-mainline-battery-electric-trains" or "https://rock-group.co.uk/next-gener...lectric-train-fleet-for-transpennine-express/".

The only refence I can find to range is in the BBC article below where Alstom UK product director James O'Sullivan is quoted as saying 50 mile range?

"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1dl0w66e9yo" - "O'Sullivan said the new Alstom trains would have a range of about 50 miles (80km) between charges, and would charge on overhead lines and on three charging points installed at terminus stations."

Perhaps the Alstom sales team told TPE what they wanted to hear and now the Alstom engineers need to design and build it?

 

[eldomtom2]

Since the Viva Rail trail euphoria of summer 5 years ago, there is now a standardised approach to local charging (outlined in RSSB T1372?) namely standard OHLE or 3rd rail just with a local power supply so there are no issue if Hull trains wanted to joint the party (the new First group 80x units (808?) to strengthen Lumo/Hull services are OHLE / battery only but I'm not sure if the plan is always to 802+808 rather than 2x 808) or electrifying later.

That's good to hear, bespoke charging systems instead of a national standard is definitely something that should be avoided.

The only refence I can find to range is in the BBC article below where Alstom UK product director James O'Sullivan is quoted as saying 50 mile range?

Maybe he meant to say "range of roughly 50 miles away from the wire" (because if it went further it wouldn't have the charge to make it back) and misspoke or was misquote?

 

[hwl]

Can see reference to 90 miles in an X message from TPE but there's no reference in the TPE, Alstom or Rock Group articles below;



The only refence I can find to range is in the BBC article below where Alstom UK product director James O'Sullivan is quoted as saying 50 mile range?


Perhaps the Alstom sales team told TPE what they wanted to hear and now the Alstom engineers need to design and build it?

Normal operating will be less that 50 mile charges as they will get charged at Hull/Scarbrough/Saltburn. Saying 42 (Scarborough) would have just made him look like a Douglas Adams fan!

 

[GraphitProjekt]

Sorry, I don't know where I got 90miles from but if the reality is 50miles, then terminus charging is basically essential at all times

 

[Zomboid]

90 miles has been mentioned on here, but I've no idea what the source was or what the trains will actually manage.

If it's actually 50 then that gives an idea of how non-magic batteries actually are. But both being true would make sense - they'll do 90, but you wouldn't plan for more than 45 because you've got to be able to get back to a supply in case the terminus charging is unavailable.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

That's a key thing to get straight. Does 50 miles represent the range of the battery, or the distance off wires you should roughly account for (in which case the battery range is a lot more than 50 miles).

 

[Zomboid]

It's also under what circumstances it'll do that range. My car claims about 250 miles 100% to 0. If I'm doing 70mph it's far less than that, but I can get close to the claimed m/kwh if I take it easy and chill in the slow lane at about 60, though.

 

[Class 317]

The range is 90 miles as reported in green signals etc. This is the range Alstom have committed to deliver and actual range is likely to start at longer than this. This will be the range based on line speeds on the non electrified sections of route.

For the services and duty cycles this is more than adequate given the availability of terminal charging.

 

[Nottingham59]

The range is 90 miles as reported in green signals etc.

Chris Jackson the MD of Transpennine said: "Up to ninety miles on battery at 100 miles per hour", at 12m40s in the latest Green Signals podcast here: