Batteries and the Geopolitical Situation

[yorksrob]

I've always been quite sceptical about discontinuous electrification and I still believe that electrification of the trunk routes and infill is essential, however given the current geopolitical situation in which the USA can no longer be relied upon and Russia is - well Russia, do we need to go up a gear in moving away from diesel ?

It looks as though diesel is becoming more difficult to get hold of and there's no guarantee that the geopolitical situation will get back to "normal" any time soon.

Unfortunately electrification takes a lot of time (although getting rid of obstacles such as the de-facto ban on third rail infill on the Southern Region needs to happen). Do we need a faster transfer to hybrid battery systems in places such as the rural North to bridge the gap and prevent diesel availability/cost becoming a crippling Achilles heel to the railway ?

As an example, Northern has recently procured a whole order of new trains. Should these all have battery capability ?

 

[bluenoxid]

Yes, the shift should be towards battery technology.

Shifting away from Diesel should be the priority. Any scheme is going to be a multi-year design and delivery programme. It will need to account for current usage, expected changes to infrastructure, etc. Some routes will be easier to upgrade/enhance than others and the “obvious” contenders might be parked compared to less obvious contenders.

 

[Sorcerer]

We will definitely move from diesel to battery technology not just because of global geopolitics but because of railway economics. I have a lot of faith that we will embrace BEMUs to their full or near-full potential. The part I don't have much faith in is the electrification that should come afterwards. I've said it many times on the forums that batteries should be a stop-gap for the transition from diesel to fully electric but with the way transport projects go in this country we'll just say "nah just leave it, too much work".

 

[SynthD]

Geopolitics happen at a fast speed that limits the pleasing reactions we can expect from governments. Look at Germany, aiming to turn away from Russian gas by nuclear/coal/solar and still has about 5% of its gas supply from Russia via other countries. Diesel is the bedrock of some slow changing industries rightly keen on a stable and reliable source of energy that looks like what they’ve used for decades.

GWR becomes publicly owned in December. That might be the time for news on Project Churchward, the BEMUs for multiple brands.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Of course, expensive hard to obtain diesel makes trucks/lorries/HGV mileage more expensive too which can encourage a modal shift to railways. With Class 93 and 99s on a delivery schedule we can at least get some freight onto rail. I am not too concerned personally.

 

[anthony263]

Definitely get rid of this 3rd rail ban. I say fill in the gaps on the southern network and get 3rd rail from bassingstoke and Redbridge to Salisbury and Yeovil at least. Id exted the 3rd rail from.upwey to Yeovil pen mill as well

 

[HSTEd]

Making optimistic-ish assumptions, the 5,670L tank of diesel in a Class 66 would be equivalent to about 17MWh of batteries (density 0.8g/cc, 210g/kWh for the EMD 710 and 20% reduction for regenerative braking). Possibly 15MWh given the traction control system on the Class 66 is 30 years old now.

That's probably about 90-100 tonnes of batteries, although I think that capacity is probably excessive!

I think you could build an 8-axle (Bo-Bo+Bo-Bo like a Japanese EH800) freight locomotive with the installed power and tractive effort of a heavy electric, but operating on a similar operational tempo as a Class 66 in range terms, with 25kV charging/capability, a 3.75MW megawatt charging system inlet socket and probably third rail.

The question is who is going to pay for 500 new freight locomotives..... Replacing all diesels with such a fleet would require investment in static chargers, but would also eliminate complaints about low power freights clogging lines in places like Shap.

 

[SWML9102]

I've always been quite sceptical about discontinuous electrification and I still believe that electrification of the trunk routes and infill is essential, however given the current geopolitical situation in which the USA can no longer be relied upon and Russia is - well Russia, do we need to go up a gear in moving away from diesel ?

It looks as though diesel is becoming more difficult to get hold of and there's no guarantee that the geopolitical situation will get back to "normal" any time soon.

Unfortunately electrification takes a lot of time (although getting rid of obstacles such as the de-facto ban on third rail infill on the Southern Region needs to happen). Do we need a faster transfer to hybrid battery systems in places such as the rural North to bridge the gap and prevent diesel availability/cost becoming a crippling Achilles heel to the railway ?

As an example, Northern has recently procured a whole order of new trains. Should these all have battery capability ?

There are geopolitical issues associated with the supply of batteries as well. For example, cobalt primarily mined in DRC and processed in China. Yes, alternatives are being developed, but you're going to need resources from some alternative places outside the UK which you might prefer not to rely on. Perhaps making diesel from the USA look a bit more palatable.

 

[tbtc]

getting rid of obstacles such as the de-facto ban on third rail infill on the Southern Region needs to happen

Definitely get rid of this 3rd rail ban

I don't know how many more times it needs to be said but there is no ban on third rail. Starting a thread with a false premise undermines any wider point attempting to be made

We've had new third rail built (ELL etc). The only rule is that it must be safe (which, given the dangers of the high voltage current at ground level, means extending to somewhere like Yeovil would mean a lot of big ugly fences, a lot of substations and a lot fewer crossings - expensive/ controversial/ time consuming)

Fine in urban areas where obtrusive barriers are commonplace and nobody expects to be able to cross the line at track-level. A potentially tough sell in rural England

Solve those problems and you can have that less efficient version of electrification by all means

However, given how all modern DC units are dual voltage (and how reliably trains switch between diesel / AC or between AC/ DC across the network every hour), there seems very little point in choosing Third Rail

So starting of a thread pretending there's a ban on Third Rail feels like another case of trying to twist the truth to try to give you the "solution" you've predetermined

 

[HSTEd]

However, given how all modern DC units are dual voltage (and how reliably trains switch between diesel / AC or between AC/ DC across the network every hour), there seems very little point in choosing Third Rail

Well apart from the very large capital cost of 25kV installations.....

25kV does seem to have rather priced itself out of the market.

I suspect in a world where all trains will have batteries anyway, we'd probably get better results and less regulator trouble from 750V overhead systems derived from tram practice, just constantly 'trickling' (at several hundred kW!) power to the train.

The Class 777 for example, cannot operate on 25kV and have a battery installed simultaneously. Merseyrail must choose for each individual unit which to install. However a unit without a transformer can still have a pantograph.

 

[eldomtom2]

The new GBR rolling stock and infrastructure strategy reaffirms a focus on battery-electric and electric trains as the future, planning primarily for batteries with around 25% of the currently unelectrified network being electrified. It is noted that full electrification will remain the preferred option over battery operation "where route-level analysis demonstrates that freight train operators’ needs, sustained high speed operation or wider network integration make this necessary or justify the additional investment" - the reference to "sustained high-speed operation" would suggest electrification of most of the GWML, MML, and possibly the Cross Country Route as well, which would also greatly increase the number of trains partially operating over electrified track and thus make their battery conversion easier.

 

[Harpo]

Power Supplies - We already have railway OHLE power supply issues manifested by bimodes running pan down.

Everytime the network replaces a diesel with a battery electric it adds one and a bit electric trains to the network, power to run electrically plus an electricity grab for the batteries. (Please lets not pretend regen will suffice.)

I hope someone is doing a Michael Holden and asking if existing power supplies can support this.

 

[HSTEd]

Power Supplies - We already have railway OHLE power supply issues manifested by bimodes running pan down.

Everytime the network replaces a diesel with a battery electric it adds one and a bit electric trains to the network, power to run electrically plus an electricity grab for the batteries. (Please lets not pretend regen will suffice.)

I hope someone is doing a Michael Holden and asking if existing power supplies can support this.

Well, even if the entire diesel fleet is replaced by battery trains, that only increases the total number of electrically powered passenger vehicles by about 20%. Freight only uses about a fifth as much diesel as passenger operations, so their impacts on power demand probably won't be that large.


These battery trains also won't generate large demand spikes from acceleration, but would manifest as either constant loads or loads that reduce requirements when they detect signs of stress on the 25kV system (ie. voltage drops).

There will probably be needs for some targeted power supply improvements, but the entire East Coast PSU2 programme was only £216m or so.
That would only get you about 50-80 track kilometres of electrification at £2.5-£4m/stkm.

 

[35B]

Well apart from the very large capital cost of 25kV installations.....

25kV does seem to have rather priced itself out of the market.

I suspect in a world where all trains will have batteries anyway, we'd probably get better results and less regulator trouble from 750V overhead systems derived from tram practice, just constantly 'trickling' (at several hundred kW!) power to the train.

The Class 777 for example, cannot operate on 25kV and have a battery installed simultaneously. Merseyrail must choose for each individual unit which to install. However a unit without a transformer can still have a pantograph.

What Stadler have designed for the 777s is about Stadler, not the technology capability. Other units have combined 25kV and battery usage entirely successfully

 

[hwl]

Power Supplies - We already have railway OHLE power supply issues manifested by bimodes running pan down.

Everytime the network replaces a diesel with a battery electric it adds one and a bit electric trains to the network, power to run electrically plus an electricity grab for the batteries. (Please lets not pretend regen will suffice.)

I hope someone is doing a Michael Holden and asking if existing power supplies can support this.

The new rolling stock strategy has frequent mentions of the phrase "adequate power supply"...

 

[edwin_m]

Of course, expensive hard to obtain diesel makes trucks/lorries/HGV mileage more expensive too which can encourage a modal shift to railways. With Class 93 and 99s on a delivery schedule we can at least get some freight onto rail. I am not too concerned personally.

However, battery HGVs are apparently progressing rapidly in China and diesel shortages/prices will encourage their use elsewhere too.

There are geopolitical issues associated with the supply of batteries as well. For example, cobalt primarily mined in DRC and processed in China. Yes, alternatives are being developed, but you're going to need resources from some alternative places outside the UK which you might prefer not to rely on. Perhaps making diesel from the USA look a bit more palatable.

At least the battery is a one-off purchase, at least until it is life-expired around ten years later. Buy a diesel engine and you are committed to buying fuel for it, moreorless regardless of cost.

 

[HSTEd]

What Stadler have designed for the 777s is about Stadler, not the technology capability. Other units have combined 25kV and battery usage entirely successfully

Yes, however the 777s operate on the routes tha provide a rather large fraction of opportunities for third rail expansion. So I would argue they are very relevant.

And as noted, 25kV installations have become extraordinarily expensive.

 

[RyanOPlasty]

Batteries are a poor alternative to main-line electrification. Without electrification, battery-hybrid trains will be heavier, slower and less efficient than full electric traction. This will also apply to their future replacements if electrification is further delayed.

Investing in electrification should be a long-term strategy that will lower future costs. BEMUS can be a stop-gap measure, but not a long term solution.

 

[Turtle]

Batteries are a poor alternative to main-line electrification. Without electrification, battery-hybrid trains will be heavier, slower and less efficient than full electric traction. This will also apply to their future replacements if electrification is further delayed.

Investing in electrification should be a long-term strategy that will lower future costs. BEMUS can be a stop-gap measure, but not a long term solution.

Unfortunately short termism now seems ingrained in Brtish thinking where further electrification is concerned. A million sensible posts will, unfortunately, make no difference in the foreseeable future.

 

[SynthD]

There are geopolitical issues associated with the supply of batteries as well. For example, cobalt primarily mined in DRC and processed in China. Yes, alternatives are being developed, but you're going to need resources from some alternative places outside the UK which you might prefer not to rely on. Perhaps making diesel from the USA look a bit more palatable.

That’s where I thought this thread was going by the title. But I don’t see unethical carbon emitting fuel from a mildly ethical country as clearly more palatable than ethically low carbon batteries featuring a tiny amount of minerals from unethical countries.

At least the battery is a one-off purchase, at least until it is life-expired around ten years later.

It's far more than that?