Getting the most out of the new Alstom units for TPE?

[Fokx]

The GBR imperative (by the time TRU is finished) will be to replace pure diesel services by cascaded bi-modes.
Diversionary routes have never counted in major fleet purchases, and don't sway business cases.
In any case, TP North should not need many diversions when TRU is done.

Yes but the reality is if TPE were to purchase purely EMUs rather than battery multi-modal units, there would be absolutely no service between the Norths largest cities because there would be no diversionary routes across the Pennines at all, in the event of engineering work, a suicide, track damage or overhead line damage.

That simply isn't acceptable for a modern railway.

 

[3RDGEN]

Yes the TPE 802s run on diesel (at least for part of the route) between Newcastle & Edinburgh due to insufficient power supply. Hopefully this is something that will be sorted out before the TRU is complete to allow for complete electric running from Liverpool to Edinburgh via the East Coast & TRU.

There's no plan to reinstate the Liverpool - Edinburgh TPE service via the ECML, they will terminate at Newcastle although to get units back to Edinburgh for maintenance there maybe an odd service that runs through.

What they should be doing is running the 802s to Hull/Saltburn/Scarborough. Newcastle trains only need to be simple, relatively uncomplicated, EMU's. No need to buy any BEMU's for TPE. As pointed out by Richard Bowker they are costing nearly £2m per vehicle (for 145 vehicles) more than recent Elizabeth line vehicles. Together with all the ongoing costs of trailing extra weight around, more complicated maintenance/ energy consumption etc.
This is TPE that bought the 397-probably the worst riding Inter City vehicles since the early mk1s-and the simlarly rough and seemingly unnecessary Nova 3s.

EMU's would be of no use to TPE North route due to the regular booked diversions via the Calder Valley and Wakefield / Castleford which would need to be 802's with nothing left for Hull/Scarborough/Saltburn services.

TP North should not need many diversions when TRU is done.

TP North has been doing Calder Valley/Castleford/Wakefield Kirkgate diversions for decades due to planned engineering works which will always be needed.

 

[Fokx]

TP North has been doing Calder Valley/Castleford/Wakefield Kirkgate diversions for decades due to planned engineering works which will always be needed.

And Cheshire Lines for early morning and late evening Liverpool - Newcastle runs

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes but the reality is if TPE were to purchase purely EMUs rather than battery multi-modal units, there would be absolutely no service between the Norths largest cities because there would be no diversionary routes across the Pennines at all, in the event of engineering work, a suicide, track damage or overhead line damage.

That simply isn't acceptable for a modern railway.

Batteries also ease evacuation in the event of a wires down incident or other incident requiring power down and allow depots to be partly or completely unpowered and so much safer (and if the unit can't be moved provide enough power for HVAC and toilets to be maintained for a period of many hours). There's a good case to have a minimum of shunt batteries fitted to all EMUs for those reasons. So this is definitely a good thing.

 

[hwl]

In support of @hwl, I think he means that repeated and frequent charge / discharge cycling of lithium-ion batteries, either on board or in the lonesdie traction system, will cause auicker degradation than seen in automotive. Even the highest mileage EVs will rarely do a full charge cycle more than once a day on average; that imolies 50k miles pa or more. For trains doing the duty cycles we’ll see on TPE, Northern, GER etc you could easily be seeing 4-10 full cycles a day, which will need very careful management. And preferably LFP or LiTO chemistry.

Exactly. The battery duty cycle outside of rail that is most similar to BEMUs is heavy haul mining trucks (400tonnes loaded) which average 7 cycles per day and are all LTO territory. The freight loco trials in Australia with LFP have turned out to be a bit of a flop with the choice of LFP being part of the problem (this needs high recovery from regen and this was/can't happen in practice without changes). The potential future Downer trial with a mix of LTO/LFP might be slightly more useful.
Tesla Robo-taxis are only designed for 12hours a day of use and not all in one go either.

Unfortunately Alstom have gone for NMC for TP and are almost certainly their viewpoint that something vastly better will be available at the time the first battery change (probably about 5 minutes after the inclusive maintenance contract expires!

 

[stevieinselby]

Yes but the reality is if TPE were to purchase purely EMUs rather than battery multi-modal units, there would be absolutely no service between the Norths largest cities because there would be no diversionary routes across the Pennines at all, in the event of engineering work, a suicide, track damage or overhead line damage.

That simply isn't acceptable for a modern railway.

And yet that is and has been the reality for many mainlines, whether because they rely on electrification (how did the ECML cope pre-Azuma? There are plenty of points on the WCML without electrified alternatives) or because there simply aren't any diversionary routes.

At the moment, there is no realistic prospect of electrification reaching Saltburn or Scarborough, so TPE will be running some battery units, even if the Newcastle service goes to full EMU. That would enable them to be used on diversionary routes to maintain a service across the Pennines, even if passengers from Newcastle had to change to York.

Perhaps a better solution is to work towards getting the diversionary routes electrified as well – Calder Valley is a heavily used line that would appear to merit it.

 

[8ace]

LTO - Lithium Titanate Oxide
LFP - Lithium Iron Phosphate
NMC - Nickel Manganese Cobalt

I had to look it up so thought I might as well share it

 

[NCT]

Yes but the reality is if TPE were to purchase purely EMUs rather than battery multi-modal units, there would be absolutely no service between the Norths largest cities because there would be no diversionary routes across the Pennines at all, in the event of engineering work, a suicide, track damage or overhead line damage.

That simply isn't acceptable for a modern railway.

How's this different to when something happens at Hemel Hempstead?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How's this different to when something happens at Hemel Hempstead?

Because if you can divert then you should have that capabililty. Routes where there is no viable diversion because there is no physical track there to do so are largely irrelevant.

 

[Fokx]

How's this different to when something happens at Hemel Hempstead?

Because the diversions between Liverpool and York are already well used, pre-trained and actionable already.

Can we now stick to the topic and not argue as to why fictional EMUs should have been ordered ?

 

[Grumpy]

That actually wrong as there's a large chunk of Mossley that isn't being electrified.

If so then you may be right. But Network Rail's own site says "We’re electrifying the whole route to enable greener trains to run".

 

[dodecahedron67]

Unless plans have changed/do change Mossley will be ‘electrified’ - but the wires will be a permanently earthed section. So yes wires, but no current running through them

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unless plans have changed/do change Mossley will be ‘electrified’ - but the wires will be a permanently earthed section. So yes wires, but no current running through them

Presumably that's just to avoid expensive pantograph damage if it isn't dropped in time?

 

[Bald Rick]

Presumably that's just to avoid expensive pantograph damage if it isn't dropped in time?

Typically a short permanently earthed section is cheaper than two end of run anchors plus a 25kV cable between the two ends somehow.

 

[edwin_m]

Simpler all round just to keep the pan up, unless the clearance is so small for that. At Mossley the issue is electrical clearance not structural clearance.

 

[43096]

And yet that is and has been the reality for many mainlines, whether because they rely on electrification (how did the ECML cope pre-Azuma?

The same way it copes now: by using its diesel trains in a way that covers the gap. The true electro-diesel equipped Azuma fleet isn’t much bigger than the old HST fleet. And in the old days the electric trains had a standard coupling interface that allowed them to be hauled and heated by diesel locomotives.

 

[LittleAH]

The GBR imperative (by the time TRU is finished) will be to replace pure diesel services by cascaded bi-modes.
Diversionary routes have never counted in major fleet purchases, and don't sway business cases.
In any case, TP North should not need many diversions when TRU is done.
The Newcastle-Edinburgh local service is also a complete waste of 802 capability.

All lines require diversionary route knowledge. Takes one incident at Garforth or Greenfield post TRU and then services cannot traverse the Pennines.

 

[James90012]

But wouldn't those diversionary routes be within the capability of the Alstom BEMUs? If something has really gone wrong then the service would need to be thinned anyway.

 

[quantinghome]

But wouldn't those diversionary routes be within the capability of the Alstom BEMUs? If something has really gone wrong then the service would need to be thinned anyway.

Exactly this. I hadn't thought about this issue, so thank you for raising it.

In summary: The post-TRU Transpennine fast and semi-fast service is 6 trains per hour. It would be completely impossible for the Calder Valley diversionary route could take on that additional number of trains. It couldn't even take on the 4tph which the Alstom BEMUs are planned to cover. So we can dismiss the diversionary route argument as a reason for not replacing the current 802s with electric-only trains.

 

[NCT]

Passengers can always divert themselves, as is usually the case when the southern end of the WCML goes down. TransPennine passengers wouldn't been particularly hard done by.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Passengers can always divert themselves, as is usually the case when the southern end of the WCML goes down. TransPennine passengers wouldn't been particularly hard done by.

The problem with that is the diversionary routes like the Calder Valley trains are often overcrowded anyway without TPE passengers. Trying to get TPE passengers onto what are already busy services is far from a good idea. Especially when TPE can run trains via the Calder Valley to not overwhelm the regular Northern services.

Yes I know this is what happens when the ECML has engineering works and people get the already busy MML with EMR. The difference here is that TPE can (and do) run trains when there's a closure of the Transpennine Main Line such as the Calder Valley route. LNER (and also Hull Trains) have been trialling limited services into St Pancras but that is restricted due to capacity on the MML and a quite a lot of people find the coach alternative via Bedford unattractive as evidenced by the overcrowding on EMR services on top of the usual capacity issues. The Calder Valley line has capacity for TPE diversions and drivers sign the route so they might as well use it!

 

[quantinghome]

The Calder Valley line has capacity for TPE diversions and drivers sign the route so they might as well use it!

Agreed. However, while it has capacity for *some* TPE diversions it certainly couldn't handle an additional 6 trains per hour (the post-TRU TPE service). The current diversions manage about 2 tph (3, if you count the TPE trains which stop at Hebden Bridge and other Calder valley stations). So the maximum possible diversionary service could easily be covered by the Alstom BEMUs.

 

[3RDGEN]

Agreed. However, while it has capacity for *some* TPE diversions it certainly couldn't handle an additional 6 trains per hour (the post-TRU TPE service). The current diversions manage about 2 tph (3, if you count the TPE trains which stop at Hebden Bridge and other Calder valley stations). So the maximum possible diversionary service could easily be covered by the Alstom BEMUs.

The BEMU's could cover the diversions but that would mean the Newcastle services been terminated at York/Leeds as they would be EMU's only which isn't the normal practice, the Scarborough and Hull services are usually cut back to York and Leeds during engineering works giving priority to the Newcastle/Redcars. You couldn't put the BEMU's on the Newcastle services due to the 110mph limit and Newcastle crews may not sign the BEMU's as they will be 802's only in normal service.

 

[quantinghome]

The BEMU's could cover the diversions but that would mean the Newcastle services been terminated at York/Leeds as they would be EMU's only which isn't the normal practice, the Scarborough and Hull services are usually cut back to York and Leeds during engineering works giving priority to the Newcastle/Redcars. You couldn't put the BEMU's on the Newcastle services due to the 110mph limit and Newcastle crews may not sign the BEMU's as they will be 802's only in normal service.

Come on, these are hardly dealbreakers.

The 110mph limit costs all of 2.5 minutes from York to Darlington. If it's that big a deal then skip Darlington, Durham or Chester-le-Street.

As happens in many other parts of the network anticipating just such eventualities, an occasional BEMU would be scheduled for Newcastle to maintain crew competency.

 

[SomeTrainboy]

Would these units work on the south TPE route between Liverpool and Cleethorpes? Use Electric from Lime Street to Hazel Grove, Battery over the Hope Valley (could use regenerative braking on the downhill section from Edale), charge a bit at Doncaster (depending on charge times) and battery along the [mostly] flat route all the way to Cleethorpes. Would probably need charging facilities at Cleethorpes.

 

[stevieinselby]

The BEMU's could cover the diversions but that would mean the Newcastle services been terminated at York/Leeds as they would be EMU's only which isn't the normal practice, the Scarborough and Hull services are usually cut back to York and Leeds during engineering works giving priority to the Newcastle/Redcars. You couldn't put the BEMU's on the Newcastle services due to the 110mph limit and Newcastle crews may not sign the BEMU's as they will be 802's only in normal service.

So in the case of engineering works, you split the service at Leeds – no big deal. You could have both trains use the same platform to make it really easy for passengers to just walk along the platform to change trains. It's still better than pretty much any of the usual alternatives. Passengers from Hull and Scarborough regularly have to change at Leeds or York in those circumstances, this would just switch around which passengers retain through services and which don't. It's not a big enough issue to be the deciding factor in any procurement exercise.

Would these units work on the south TPE route between Liverpool and Cleethorpes? Use Electric from Lime Street to Hazel Grove, Battery over the Hope Valley (could use regenerative braking on the downhill section from Edale), charge a bit at Doncaster (depending on charge times) and battery along the [mostly] flat route all the way to Cleethorpes. Would probably need charging facilities at Cleethorpes.

No. The new units are only for use on TP North. TP South will continue to use the class 185s.

There is nowhere near enough electrification on TP South for the Adessias – it's 105 miles each way between Hazel Grove and Cleethorpes, and you're not going to get enough stand time in Doncaster to get any meaningful replenishment from 25kV AC. A full recharge at Cleethorpes isn't going to help without a 40 mile extension cable for when the incoming train runs out of juice somewhere around Scunthorpe...

I'm not saying the route can't be done with battery trains, but it can't be done with these battery trains, because they're only designed for shorter sections off the wires.

 

[quantinghome]

Would these units work on the south TPE route between Liverpool and Cleethorpes? Use Electric from Lime Street to Hazel Grove, Battery over the Hope Valley (could use regenerative braking on the downhill section from Edale), charge a bit at Doncaster (depending on charge times) and battery along the [mostly] flat route all the way to Cleethorpes. Would probably need charging facilities at Cleethorpes.

These units are not planned to be used for the southern transpennine so it's a hypothetical. That said, at some point in the future the diesels will have to be replaced with either electric-only or BEMU trains. Unless the train waits half an hour at Doncaster you will need some additional electrification.

I guess it depends what happens elsewhere, but the recently released GBR strategy states that full electrification will be needed on routes with sustained higher speed operation i.e. intercity routes. That would mean finally electrifying the Midland and XC routes, giving the southern transpennine an electrified section from Dore & Totley through to Doncaster which should be adequate, And yes, you'd have charging at Cleethorpes as is planned for Hull, Scarborough and Saltburn.

 

[HSTEd]

I guess it depends what happens elsewhere, but the recently released GBR strategy states that full electrification will be needed on routes with sustained higher speed operation i.e. intercity routes. That would mean finally electrifying the Midland and XC routes, giving the southern transpennine an electrified section from Dore & Totley through to Doncaster which should be adequate, And yes, you'd have charging at Cleethorpes as is planned for Hull, Scarborough and Saltburn.

How much of the unelectrified railway actually has "sustained higher speed operation" though?

How much of XC and the MML is above 110 and not already electrified as an example?
How much of the GWML? I don't think the Berks and Hants has any.

I think cost realities will drive in the opposite direction to electrifying fast sections. Slow sections get more charge into the train per metre of expensive electrification.

Charging time per pound may be a better metric.

Dore and Totley to Meadowhall could probably be sufficient for electrification in the vicinity of Sheffield. I don't think there is that much point going to Doncaster

 

[Killingworth]

Dore and Totley to Meadowhall could probably be sufficient for electrification in the vicinity of Sheffield. I don't think there is that much point going to DoDoncaster.

I'm afraid that's the most challenging, and expensive, section to electrify of the South Pennine route. (Batteries are probably ideal for the tunnels.) It's also a big part of the reasons for postponement/cancellation of the MML eletrification project.

Restoring at least a third track in from Dore and a total rebuild of the tracks through Sheffield won't be easy. Too much has been built on and around the old track layout quite apart from how the railway weaves around the Rivers Sheaf and Don and the industry that's been built around it and them.

Sensible, too difficult, leave it for another 10-20 years, whenever?

 

[HSTEd]

I'm afraid that's the most challenging, and expensive, section to electrify of the South Pennine route. (Batteries are probably ideal for the tunnels.) It's also a big part of the reasons for postponement/cancellation of the MML eletrification project.

Well per metre it is, yes.

But in the battery era I'm not sure how much cost per metre matters. I think the better metric is seconds of pantograph up per pound spent.

A kilometre of track on a 100mph railway only charges each train for something like 23 seconds. At 20mph it is 115 seconds, the 20mph section could be treble the price per metre and still be the better choice.

A station platform is great because it gets you the dwell time almost for free. The tracks around Sheffield are heavily utilised and at low speeds, especially between dore and Totley and meadowhall, I think they could be extremely expensive per metre and still be the best choice of charging location

Restoring at least a third track in from Dore and a total rebuild of the tracks through Sheffield won't be easy. Too much has been built on and around the old track layout quite apart from how the railway weaves around the Rivers Sheaf and Don and the industry that's been built around it and them.

Sensible, too difficult, leave it for another 10-20 years, whenever?

I personally think Sheffield needs a total rebuild more than anything, but I doubt one is forthcoming.
In the absence I'm not sure the BEMU programme can afford to get scope creeped into non charging infrastructure improvements.